The Instigator
Kaoss712
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

We should find cure for aging

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,703 times Debate No: 61407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

Kaoss712

Pro

As the world is changing in a way that occupations are changin rapedly and you constantly have to learn new things
and old people can't (don't want to) learn new things SENS Foundation must find cure for aging.
Wylted

Con

As somebody who loves this topic and has devoted a ton of my personal time researching this as well as e-mailing the Sens foundation, reading all of Kurzweil's books, spending a ton of time watching speeches of and reading material from Aubrey De Grey I look forward to this debate.

There is not very many subjects I'm extremely knowledgable on and yet I still do reasonably well on a wide variety of debates. I strongly encourage my opponent to look up all the common objections to scientists working on creating indefinite lifespans for people. I also encourage him to give well reasoned, researched and cited arguments.

This debate will not be easy for him to win and I want a strong challenge. None of this advice is meant to be offensive only preemptive to insure a high quality debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Kaoss712

Pro

Wylted, it's very hard to debate with someone who is not giving con arguments.
I'll be happy to state my arguments. And here they are:
First of all we are created to find the cure, as we are looking for other cures.
This is no difference except that is more effective way to defend from age related diseases.
Prevention instead of struggling with various diseases arising because of no prevention.
In my opinion it's no different then hygiene, I see it as hygiene on molecular level.
We are supposed to do this because it is in our nature, to progress, to make our life better just like
in other areas. We are given this gift and obligation to develop things that makes our life better.
The only reason people are not for this because it's new, it's strange, nobody ever done it before,
so in people's mind it's not right, it's not normal. But what's normal is going to change.
Religious people are pro life... so how come are they against this... it doesn't make sense to me,
so I've concluded that the only reason that people are against it is because of fear of new, unknown.
And we need to shatter that fear. God said "Do not be afraid"... I believe God will adapt us for this change,
but it will take some time.
Wylted

Con

Environmental Impacts

A. The industrial/technological system is the main factor behind global warming. We know that global warming is man made and a result of the industrial-technological revolution is because of the amount of low isotope carbon-14 found in the atmosphere. Something that mainly comes from burning fossil fuels.

http://ossfoundation.us...

This type of problem is only going to get worse with an increased population. If we increase lifespan it's going to kill the environment and then we're all dead.

B. Let's face it. We know that the only people benefiting from life extension technologies are going to be the same people in industrialized nations who are just relentlessly destroying the environment, with no signs of stopping.

More then 14,000 people die from drinking polluted water every day [1]. Nearly half a billion people do not have access to safe drinking water [2]. I've only mentioned the human element so far. This pollution is also causing extremely harmful affects on underwater ecosystems as well. The sources of this harmful phenomenon is mostly human caused and as a result of the industrial-technological system. If you look at the sources of water pollution in the cited article you will come to the same conclusion [3].

[1] http://environment.about.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

C. Air pollution is going to get worse with more people on the planet.

The industrial technological system has harmed the quality of the air we breathe. Smog is something caused by pollutants from internal combustion engines of cars as well as industrial fumes from factories. [1] The health affects of smog are harmful to everyone but especially children, the elderly, those with bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma [2]. Curing aging is only making these problems worse and more common.

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://web.archive.org...

This can't be stressed enough. Having more people live longer in industrialized society is going to send Earth to hell in a hand basket. We as a society can't let our own selfish pursuits be the very thing that destroys us.

Harm To Animals

A. We try to psychologically shield ourselves from the torturous factory farming that really hurts animals. I'm not talking about ethical farming here. The only way we can feasibly and cheaply feed a society this large is through factory farming. The longer people live the more extreme suffering we're causing animals.

Factory farming has reduced animals to mere cogs in the machine. Animals are out in cages that are extremely crowded . They live their whole lives barely able to move. [1] They are on many occasions force fed in a way that causes extreme damage and pain [2]. They are debeaked [3]. This is just a short list of the abuse these animals take to feed the industrial-technological system.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.m.humanesociety.org...
[3] http://www.mercyforanimals.org...

B. I've already shown how underwater ecosystems are being destroyed by the industrial-technological system. Now let's move on to other ecosystems. Over 50% of plant and animal species live in the rainforest[1]. The majority of the deforestation occurring in these areas can be directly contributed to the industrial-technological system [2].

[1] http://www.nature.org...
[2] http://unfccc.int...

Attack On The Poor and Young

My main arguments were that we'd make the industrial/technological machine bigger and harm the planet and animals, but there are other factors to consider as well.

With all this aging gone, it will be impossible to get promotions at work. Older people retire or move on and open up spots for younger people to take over. Professional and management positions or rife with old people looking to retire or die. Once you put some eternally youthful guy there you've just screwed a young guy just starting out in life and instead of this guy being doomed to middle management he is now doomed to be bottom of the barrel indefinitely.

Let's be honest here. Science progresses when old people die. The longer you've been in the scientific field the more stubborn you get. Science never truly progresses until the old people holding on to their stubborn beliefs retire or die and make room for more creative free thinking youth to enter the picture.

Also if you take a look at a lot of extremely wealthy people, they're good savers. I mean that's how they got wealthy. Now when they die, their money is taxed or inherited and typically their less frugal kids and grand kids blow it all and put it all back into the economy.

If you think the wealth divide is huge now, try giving all these frugal millionaires and indefinite lifespan.

The best thing you can do to create a society of hopeless young poor people, unable to make their way in the world is to cure aging.

Conclusion

Sure on the surface ending aging sounds wonderful, but when you look at the environmental impacts, the increased torture of animals and the effect on the young that rosy picture quickly fades away. I'll go into rebuttals and final statements in the next round. Thanks everybody for reading this far, and thank you pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Kaoss712

Pro

ADAPTATION

First it doesn't necessarily means that population will grow if we find aging cure.
Yes, people will live longer, but it will affect their reproductive system.
In nature there is a rule that the bigger child mortality - the more children family has.
More quality life with less child mortality - the less children family has.
So the people population is regulated by nature and there is nothing to worry about.

Your whole "Harm to animals" argument is based on presumption that there will be a lot
more people on the planet which is unlikely.

The world is changing more rapidly than ever, in all areas.
For pollution - people are aware of it and today all new cars have economic engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Also electric cars are booming for last couple of years and very soon gasoline powered cars
will be history. Thanks to Tesla motors :)
http://www.teslamotors.com...
Electric power, clean power, obtained from sun and wind are developing faster then ever
http://www.solarcity.com...

People are becoming more ethical, more civilized, more reasoned
and there for even if population increases we will be able to sustain more people,
development of clean, more efficient technology will contribute to that too.

Not only that it"s not "fun" to be old and sick,
old people don"t contribute, they spend a lot and are burden to humanity.
Eliminating old age is not just a attractive desire, because of change of demand in work
(changing careers and learning new skills)
it"s crucial to find aging cure to save humanity.

"The first obvious implication of a population that is getting a lot older without growing much is that, unless the retirement age changes, there will be fewer workers. That means less output, unless productivity rises to compensate."
Only the rise of productivity can save us, which is finding aging cure.

http://www.economist.com...

Because of progress and change of work system, fight for job doesn"t make sense ,
we would have this problem only if there is constant amount of jobs,
but more people = more jobs, because people create jobs.
We are explorers by nature so we will never stop wanting, building, creating jobs.
Jobs are changing in a way that people are working many jobs in their life,
it's no longer one job for whole your life,
so different times requires different people,
jobs require people to be more adaptive, being able to constantly learning
new skills, old people can't learn new skills.

EXPANSION IN TIME AND SPACE

If we want to expand in space we must expand in time too.
Space exploration has made significant progress in last years too and space tourism is at the doorstep, the announcement for space tourism is coming from several companies like Space X

http://www.spacex.com...
http://mashable.com...

If we want to reach distant planets we will need to live a lot longer.

The new world has started already, this is just one part of the new world,
it is the right thing, the natural part of evolution.

We are not animals, our life has more value, we should fight for it,
not let it be defeated by time, just like we"re not letting it be defeated by other causes
such as injuries and diseases.
This is no different than hygiene which prevents diseases,
the only difference is that now, for the first time in history we have the technology
and power to make it happen.
Wylted

Con

"First it doesn't necessarily means that population will grow if we find aging cure.
Yes, people will live longer, but it will affect their reproductive system.
In nature there is a rule that the bigger child mortality - the more children family has.
More quality life with less child mortality - the less children family has.
So the people population is regulated by nature and there is nothing to worry about."


You've shown nothing that would indicate that population growth would slow, other than some magical force in nature which there is no indication of existing. The number of children being correlated with infant mortality is ridiculous. Not only is there no citations to show that this is true, I find it more likely that poverty is more of an indicator of both birth rate and infant mortality than both are to each other.

"Your whole "Harm to animals" argument is based on presumption that there will be a lot
more people on the planet which is unlikely."


This is ridiculous. According to the UN who showed 3 scenarios for population change up until the year 2300, the population will continue to grow to 9 billion in 2075 for low growth models. For the medium and high growth estimates, the population will grow until atleast 2300. http://www.un.org...

I'm pretty sure the UN didn't take into account any cure for aging in their estimates. With age related deaths being the largest cause if mortality, I'd think that even the high growth scenario is probably a conservative estimate of where total population is headed,

My opponent needs to not just say something is unlikely, but to back it up with evidence. In this case the evidence is against him.

"The world is changing more rapidly than ever, in all areas.
For pollution - people are aware of it and today all new cars have economic engines."


It's good that companies are starting to pander to environmentalists, but it's also done nothing to curb the upward trend of pollution. It also does nothing to curb the upward trend in 3rd world countries that don't get any of these fancy hybrid cars, Not that it matters because gas powered cars are showing no signs of going away.

"People are becoming more ethical, more civilized, more reasoned
and there for even if population increases we will be able to sustain more people,
development of clean, more efficient technology will contribute to that too."


There is no evidence that people are becoming more ethical, civilized or reasoned. We also still live in a consumer driven commercialized society. We will always "buy, buy, buy" and this will contribute to pollution from factories and a depletion of natural resources, an increasing population will only make the problem worse.

"the only difference is that now, for the first time in history we have the technology and power to make it happen. "


No we don't. There is no evidence that technology is at a point where we can cure aging. This is an absurd statement.

"but more people = more jobs, because people create jobs.
We are explorers by nature so we will never stop wanting, building, creating jobs.
Jobs are changing in a way that people are working many jobs in their life


My opponent not only is completely ignorant of economics, he misses the point of what I'm arguing. It's not the amount of jobs I'm concerned about, though that certainly is a problem. It's the amount of "good jobs", that are now being Bogared by perpetually youthful people. We're creating a trap that makes it very hard for people to move up in a company or gain jobs that will give them a good income as opposed to a mediocre or low income.

My opponent has failed to show why curing aging is a good thing and merely expects us to just assume it is and then fails to address any of my concerns about the problems with industrialized society that will only get worse with an increased population. He asserts that technology will save us, but fails to show how this is a reasonable proposition.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
A 180 day voting period? That's stupid. I can't believe the stupidity if this absurdly long voting period.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
There are some extremely good objections to it md my arguments only scratch the surface.
Posted by Kaoss712 2 years ago
Kaoss712
Wylted sorry if I offended you, I wasn't saying that directly to you, it's more like how people should see this project of finding the cure.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm actually for this, but your understanding of transhumanism is paper thin and very shallow.
Posted by Kaoss712 2 years ago
Kaoss712
This is the most humain thing to do,
if you're not for this then you are not human :)
Posted by Terridax 2 years ago
Terridax
It's funny that you say you used to interpret the bible, but now you let god teach it to you. Yet this god you speak of is all in your head, so you're still doing the exact same thing, just using those words to make yourself feel better about it. How do I know this? Because the same 'god' you're talking to tells all of the Jews to chop cut off parts of baby genitals, tells Muslims they should use deception to spread Islam, and tell Mormons they will one day rule over their own planet. This is the same god telling people all kinds of different things, most of them conflicting with each other... how is this possible? Because you're not conversing with a god, you're talking to the voices in your head.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I have found that the bible is so simple that we would need help to misunderstand it.I just read it and take God at his word.I have shown people psalm 103:3 that says that God will heal all of our diseases. And their first response, which is filtered through a religious mind, is, " That does not mean what it says". I never hear about any other book saying that it is open for interpretation.If anyone reads the bible with preconceived ideas, then you can twist it to fit those ideas, but only in your mind. Not in truth.Many years ago I threw away all my religious training and let only God through His word teach me what it says.
Posted by Terridax 2 years ago
Terridax
The simple fact that you are willing to dedicate your entire life to a book that's up for interpretation is mind-blowing to me...
Posted by Kaoss712 2 years ago
Kaoss712
So true, I see too that people interpret bible wrong.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Kaoss712WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters practiced proper conduct throughout. S&G - Con. Pro's formatting was poor, which led to grammatical errors as evidenced in rounds 2 & 3. Overall, Con's presentation had less errors and he is therefore awarded these points. Arguments - Con. Pro's best chance at winning would have been round 3, where he would have tackled Con's rebuttals effectively and affirmed his position with evidence. Unfortunately, that was not the case. In round 3, Pro made several claims that all lacked proof, which can be seen immediately with his nature rules and reproduction assumptions. Pro had a burden to affirm his position and was simply unable to do so with unverifiable and unproven claims. Con effectively challenged Pro's position and found his rebuttals to be met with nothing of substance. Since Pro failed to maintain his position for the reasons above, Con is awarded these points. Sources - Con. Both utilized sources, but Pro's failed to strengthen his claims, unlike Con.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
Kaoss712WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con addressed every argument made by Pro. Overall, Pro has not met his burden of proof. Pro has also made false assertions without any sources, which Con corrected with reliable sources. Pro also made a few notable grammar mistakes.