Biologically Immortal Humans

I will use the same format in my closing arguments as my opponent, seeing that it will not confuse things. 1. My opponent argues that there is nothing to maintain the maintenance system. It is obvious that the maintenance system is self-maintaining [1][2]. The system is physical [3], in that any degradation is the result of physics. My opponent has mixed up his references 1 and 2. That is forgivable. What my opponent fails to state is how this genetic feature can be adapted into humans won"t work. After all, jellyfish luminance has been transferred to mice and can theoretically be transferred to humans. [4] 1.1 What my opponent fails to state is that if apoptosis is removed, then cells would not die even though they degrade to an extent that would normally require death. After all, even if we are just a bag of cells that is living but highly degraded, we would still not be dead, although life in such a state would be meaningless. I see no references to "non-cellular" portions of the body. The body"s building block is the cell. To removing apoptosis altogether. This would not be required. If a cell multiplies sufficiently, then some cells would be allowed to die, but the whole organism would still live [5]. 1.1.1 My opponent has created a straw man in that he has disallowed the death of cells within the human body. This is not what my debate is about. My debate is about the death of the organism, so this point fails. 1.1.2 Refer to reference 5 and supporting argument. 1.1 My opponent has created a factual inconsistency. He states, "So while the cell will not die from suicide, that only leaves a large fraction of the body in the safe zone. All of our senses will degrade, all our joints and bones will degrade, the protective lining of our stomach will degrade etc..." All the items listed are made from cells [6]. 1.2 I said nothing about experimenting on human babies. This is because genetic changes can be made in adult mammals [7], theoretically including humans. 1.3 The strawman as described in 1.1.1 is used again. 1.4 My opponent"s arguments fail here [8]. As shown in reference 7, changes to the genome can be made. Just because we don"t have the information does not mean we don"t have the technology. 2. I have already stated that humans would fight. They have been doing it, is doing it, and will be doing it even if they are not immortal. My opponent"s main objection thus fails. 3. I have already stated my reasons for this. Humans would be pushed to colonize other planets, which is not immoral. Furthermore, my opponent"s contention that life would starve because technology would not keep up with the pace of human growth is false in the light of the technological revolution. When there"s a need, there"s a driving force for innovation. Thus, it need not take centuries. Thanks for the interesting debate. Vote Pro References: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.bostonreview.net... 3. Leggett, G.J., Brewer, N.J and Chong, K.S.L., Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7:1107"1120, 2005. 4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://www.popsci.com... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org...