Immortality

Her case:1. All her benefits of immortality rely on humans being around. Saving someone from a burning building, seeing future civilization, punching your boss. All of these rely on the human race existing. But remember the Frank Fenner evidence which states that humans may go extinct within 100 years. The heat-death of the universe will take 10^100 years. So over the time frame of 10^100, a period of 100 years with humans will encompass 0.000000000001% of your life. In a few trillion years, human civilization will become a mere afterthought and may be forgotten entirely. Time with humans would represent about 5 minutes of your life, in our time.2. As such, her benefits are extremely temporary and short lived. She justifies living for trillions of years for the benefits that will happen in a couple hundred of them. What about the other eras they'd have to live through? Remember that 10^86 years of an immortal life will be in a universe with no life or planets, which will be devoid of all the benefits Pro's offered.Con case:1. Infinite probabilityShe's agreed that there's a 100% chance of any bad thing happening due to living so long. She argues that there's also a 100% chance of any good thing happening. However, 1. After the solar system collapses in some odd trillion years, what "good" is going to exist? Remember that an immortal will have to live 10^84 years in a universe with no planets. Thats the vast majority of their lifespan, which seems devoid of any form of entertainment or "good". 2. Weigh the pros and cons. We agree that there's a 100% chance that any good or bad thing will happen to an immortal eventually. So which outweighs? Ask yourself, what is the best possible thing that could happen to you right now? A lot of us would answer "win the lottery, find a soul mate, etc." Now, whats the worst possible thing that could happen, besides death? How about getting life in prison, or getting trapped forever in a collapsed mine? The possible bad things that will inevitably happen to an immortal clearly outweigh the good. Volcano example - She says that the time period of being trapped in a volcano eruption would seem short because an immortal will live so long. But she drops my argument that the excruciating pain of being engulfed by lava would drive the person insane within a few days. At that point, even if they make it out, there's no benefits to immortality anyway since they'll be mentally deranged from the experience.C2: Eternal boredomMy opponent makes the same fallacy of listing only entertainment sources that are available when humans are around. She says that 7 billion people on Earth can think of things for you to do so you're not bored, but humans will only be around for so long. Remember, well over 99% of an immortal's life will be without humans, so none of her benefits and entertainment sources apply.C3: Human extinctionShe has conceded that humans will go extinct at some point. Extend the National Institute of Health evidence which states that a lack of human interaction significantly increases the probability of depression.1. She states that an immortal won't need humans when they die out because they'll have time to develop human sources of entertainment themselves. But developing entertainment sources like television and cars, and making them work without relying on other people, would be excruciatingly complicated and difficult.For instance, electricity. It takes hundreds of people to maintain the electrical grid and power supply right now. She insinuates that an immortal, given enough time, could find a way to make it work with only ONE person. Lets look at what you would have to do to keep electricity in a world with no other people.1. Ship several tons of coal to power plants to maintain a power source2. Find out how to operate all faculties of said power plants.3. Operate several electrical transformers4. Maintain a number of electrical substations5. Continuously perform maintenance on all power lines between you and the plant6. Figure out how to work all the circuitsEtc. The same would apply to fueling transportation devices, and maintaining other power sources. They would forever to figure out how to do with only 1 person in the world.She assumes that an immortal would have the motivation to figure out all this stuff. Even if finding a way to maintain an energy source would be possible, the sheer work and time it would take actually accomplish it is far beyond what anyone would be motivated to do. 2. Pro says that an immortal would have to watch all their loved ones die around them, but that its ok because we accept this as a trade-off for living forever. But just because we accept this disadvantage doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. If I volunteer to go to war, I accept that I might die, but that doesn't mean me dying isn't a bad thing.C4: Planetary destructionShe concedes that Earth will cease to exist at some point. This kicks all her arguments that have anything to do with humans and entertainment sources that exist on Earth. Thats her entire case. Pro argues that, when Earth is destroyed, an immortal won't suffer without oxygen or food because they can't die. However, not needing food or oxygen was not mentioned in the agreed definition of immortality. Still, to avoid a debate about definitions, I'll drop this. Then she says you can just build a Millennium Falcon and move to a different planet when this one is destroyed. This fallaciously assumes that we will develop hyperspace travel before the Earth is hit by an asteroid/nuclear war. There are no assumptions in debate. If Earth is destroyed prior to the development of intergalactic space travel, the necessary resources to build such a space ship won't exist. Thus my disadvantage applies.More importantly, extend the Universal Timeline argument. 10^86 years of the universe's lifespan will be without planets, making space travel worthless. C5: Universal TimelineRemember the argument. Most of the universe's lifespan will have no planets or stars, which means an immortal would simply be floating around in space for 10^86 years. Pro says that we can't know that an immortal wouldn't enjoy this because no one has been in this situation before. This is highly fallacious. While we can't know some things for certain, we can use logic to make educated guesses. I'm making the drastic claim that a planetless universe would be boring, because there would be no resources left in the universe to sustain any form of entertainment. The problem will be even worse in another timeframe in the universe. In 10^40 years from now, all nucleons will have decayed (1). Nucleons make up literally every object in the universe. Ipods, TV's, chairs, even my opponent's hyperspace shuttle are all made up of nucleons. When they've decayed there will literally be nothing in the universe except the immortal and black holes. Since the universe's end will take 10^100 years, and this phase begins in 10^40 years, an immortal would have to live through 10^60 years in a universe with nothing but themselves. Extend eternal boredom argument. I patiently await my opponent's response.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...