Immortality would be a desirable thing

As for the Pro's presumptions: I agree to them only for the sake of the debate, I am only specifying that I do not believe God does not exist and that there is no Afterlife for the circumstances regarding this debate, Those are not my actual views in real life. Just wanted to make that clear. Existence is always preferred to non existence, however I feel that among humans it is simply longer existence is preferred, not permanent existence. Onto the case. 1) "An individual has a moral obligation to carry on both life and the memory of his forefathers and culture" I agree however I feel that individuals only have an obligation to carry on memories and culture of their forefathers and pass it on to their offspring, not to carry it on by never dying out. "because we're comparing the world of the negative (a lifeless universe), to the world of the Aff (a Universe in which life exists)." The comparison being made in this debate is our current universe where life exists to the world of the Aff which would be a universe where human life never dies out. 2) " What we are seeing is an unprecedented human influence on our environment, with plans being made to colonize both the Moon and Mars in the near future" The US has had plans and intentions of colonizing the moon ever since the Carter administration. 40 years later Obama is shutting down manned space flights so what people are seeing is an increase in time it would take for the US to colonize planets of relatively close distance. Earth to Mars and Earth to any of the dozens of other possibly inhabited planets that lie thousands of light years away. My point is when the day comes we do colonize the Moon and then Mars, it will be an even larger jump to try to colonize anything else.... The one scientist who claims that the Universe has enough resources to sustain about 50 quadrillion humans existed in 1950, a time period where humans consumed far, far less resources and electricity than they do today. An estimate from someone within these last 60 years may be a little more appropriate before we could determine just how many of us the Universe can support. Also it depends on where these resources are located because Mars and the Moon are quite literally giant rocks and any earth-like planet with actual usable resources lie thousands of light years away... 3) "Thus, an individual choosing to stay alive would appeal desirably to our nature which is highly significant" I agree to that however I feel that humans choose a desire to stay alive longer, not forever. There is a difference. 4) "I have proven that sustaining life is something to be desired, and therefore you affirm." I am not here to argue that we shouldnt sustain life, I however feel that sustaining life to the point of immortality is undesired, and here are my arguments why. - 1 - Poverty If you were a rich millionaire living on the top floor of a giant skyscraper in a beautiful futuristic city, then yeah life is looking pretty good and we could all certainly live like that forever. However we cannot all live that way, there will always be thousands of underclass workers for every one upper class worker. Some of these underclass workers though live in grinding poverty, many people in some areas in the world live on less than $1 dollar a day and barely feed themselves or their families, so why would someone want to thrust immortality onto Humans and seal people's fates of living in that wretched lifestyle forever? We cannot assume that in the future all humans live like kings, it can only be assumed that society will constantly remain in a class system of low, middle, and upper classes of people - 2 - Disease It was agreed upon that humans of immortality would not be able to die from a fatal disease, however that certainly does not rule out that humans can be affected by diseases. There are cases where people are born with polio, skin psoriasis, or other physical setbacks that themselves are not lethal but cause a nice load of suffering. If humans were to become immortal than these diseases would not cause death but with the burden they put on people it could give them a fate worse than death. Also there are people who are born or develop very weak immune systems, and even though with immortality no disease could kill them, they would still be almost constantly sick from a common cold that would take quite a while for them to recover from only to then catch another common cold with the cycle going over and over forever... Why wish that on anyone? Also consider the new diseases that could come out in the future that can cause far more wretched conditions and could be inherited or caught. What if a disease came about caused people to lose their eyesight in a matter of days? even if such diseases were to affect one part of the human race why wish those humans to suffer from blindness or a different physical setback, forever? - 3 - Planetary catastrophes http://www.youtube.com... In the video above you were watching footage from a little-known European film regarding a persons life as the Earth collided with a rogue planet wandering through the universe. Earth was completely annihilated but because people could suffer not major injury, they would simply have everything they knew before be destroyed leaving just people on the new rogue planet. What if there were no resources on the planet though? nothing to use to rebuild society or rebuild anything to call home? Even then, what if the known planet began to drift into the emptiness of space away from any star that could provide any kind of heat or warmth. If humans were immortal, than those billions of people on that planet would be stranded on that planet probably frozen solid (but completely alive), starving (since the rogue planet was lifeless) and probably helpless (how could humanity evacuate billions of people from a wandering planet)? It doesnt even have to be a rogue planet many times the sizes of Earth, what if some asteroid struck? the last major asteroid strike that killed off the dinosaurs blocked out the sun because of the amount of dirt and ash it kicked up into the atmosphere. Imagine living on a planet where everything around you was dying, no food could be grown, and food would run out. With immortality people would starve for centuries before they could either colonize another livable planet within close distance, and even then you must deal with the logistics of evacuating billions of people from a planet, no feasible task. Why take that risk with universal immortality? I can introduce many other scenarios, but they all relate back to one thing in particular, suffering. There are dozens of things out there that cause suffering to people and immortality would only grant that these things would not kill you, however it would not mean suffering will not go away. Such suffering could be quite extensive and in some cases completely unavoidable as some of them occur strictly through random chance, however with immortality these things that cause suffering a) now have a larger chance of affecting you, and b) affect you for a much, much longer period of time. Whether or not it can be remedied in a particular person is debatable but it cannot be denied that in the future many humans will go through times of extreme suffering and can only endure through it before others help them out of it, if they help at all. If people were immortal why concern yourself with helping them out of it when you have billions and billions of years to do so later? I will end here for now but would like to reinforce the fact that immortality solves death, but there are many fates that are worse than death, and with immortality those fates worse than death would grow worse even more since they could affect people until the end of time itself...