Anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society

1.New laws 2.Overpopulation 3.Harder job opportunities 4.Economic divied 5.Environmental factors 6.Conclusions 7.References NEW LAWS You have speculated far too much here, I would like to ask you to provide some evidence that it will cause you to mature slower. From what I understand of this, the aging would be related to the cells and how they react to damage, younger cells are better able to repair genetic defects [1] and therefore reduce the risk of cancer related to age [2] which happens when cells become old and don't repair correctly. With regards to the clinic, this is a ludicrous statement that isn't backed up by any form of fact, a child can't just walk in with a moustache and expect to receive the drug, for one, females wouldn't be exempt from this and for another thing, it would be a referral from a GP or other medical professional if it was administered by a clinic. Driving wise, there are plenty of ways around this and it isn't difficult for a country to manage, if you can prove you have been learning to drive, you would be unaffected by the change. It would be a similar principle to when contracts change, if you've already signed it before the change, you are unaffected by the change. OVERPOPULATION You say it's impossible to live in Antarctica, however you are wrong, there are scientists and other people who live there [3] mostly for work but it shows that people can live there and do, so even places like that can't be ruled out. There is also Chernobyl, which is still effected by radiation but as it dissipates, the risk will become less and therefore making it habitable again, it once was home to about 14,000 people but now only 500 [4], so there is plenty of room when things clear up. China is a developing state, so it won't be long till it is a developed state, this point is irrelevant. As for Chinas population, yes it is high but what you have failed to look at is its population growth rate, which has declined [5], there are many factors which could contribute to a countries population, such as immigration. HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES There is no limit on social networking jobs, even small paid jobs, there are companies that will hire people as paid volunteers, such as ChaCha, which pays people to provide answers for its texting service. But jobs will come up in these areas and when times are good, there are investors for new ideas as well as investment in housing. In recent time, after the internet took off, we had the dot-com bubble, which eventually burst but this was based on new technology and advancements, the same cycle will continue. As for cancer treatment, I am interested to know as to why you dismiss it without reason, you are aware that because of advancements in cancer treatments, you have more people living and living longer, this adds to the number of people looking for a job and that's how it fits in with job opportunities, advances in healthcare will increase the number of people living as well. Regarding adaptability, I gave some thoughts on how we would adapt in my previous argument, however you haven't provided anything to say we wouldn't adapt. You seem to fail to understand that businesses are always operating at a risk of some form or other, anti-ageing drugs would fall under political risks [6] and it's something businesses would plan for if it ever happened. ECONOMIC DIVIDE You missed my point here, Africa has a high population due to its poor conditions which lead to early deaths, the same thing happened in developed countries when there were poor conditions and lower life expectancy but as they developed, the lower the need to have large families, there is already a decline in some African countries in the amount of children they have [7], anti-aging drugs could speed the natural process up and reduce global population. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS I never said it wasn't worth worrying about, I believe I gave examples of where work is being done already, such as governments switching to renewable along with research and advancements in carbon capture. With regards to recycling, I said 32% of household waste in the US, not the UK, to quote myself; "...and in the US, 32% of waste is currently recycled...", now on the link for wastes, there are things there that are bio-degradable, such as clothes, these will have no effect on the environment, well actually nothing on that list will as it states that "Non-recyclable waste will end up at the dumping ground to be buried." [8], to cause harm and toxins to be released, it would be burnt but that isn't what they are doing. As for a "carbon tax", that's fine, that's just proving my point that governments are doing something about the environment and that an increase in population isn't going to do an increased amount of damage. CONCLUSION And here lays the problem with much of your argument, it's mostly opinion and speculation but I am glad you have done a bit of research this time around, although I would recommend avoiding Wikipedia and WikiAnswers as sources. Nothing had advanced much in terms of this debate due to the lack of supporting evidence on your side for anti-aging drugs causing slower maturity or why humans won't adapt. As for the points on the economic divide, I haven't seen anything supporting that claim either, if the drug is seen as essential to a country, they will subsidise it if they have that form of health care system, which means both rich and poor will have access. REFERENCES [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [3] http://www.antarctica.ac.uk... [4] http://www.economist.com... [5] http://www.google.com.au... [6] http://www.businesslink.gov.uk... [7] http://www.economist.com... [8] http://www3.jkl.fi...