Anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society

Thank you CrazyTool once again for posting an interesting argument for this debate. I'd also like to apologise for my argument being slightly late as well. Let me continue with the format that you have edited from mine: 1.New laws 2.Overpopulation 3.Harder job opportunities 4.Economic divied 5.Environmental factors 6.Conclusions 7.References NEW LAWS With regards to your doubt that the driving age will go up, please refer to my definition. I stated that an anti-aging drug will make you GROW SLOWER. That means we will mature slower, develop better habits and responsibilities much later in life. Also, note that maturing children are not fully aware of what it means to drive a car, for example, what it is like to crash or be crashed into by a car. Right now, I am 14 years old, and with the influence of anti-aging drugs, I would have both the physical, and more importantly, mental build of a six of seven years old child. I can recall the times where I thought I could not be harmed by a speeding car (and no, I was not hallucinating). We cannot allow 16 years old (current mental build of an 8 years old child) with the influence of the drug, learn how to drive. You have also stated in your argument that the life expectancy in the UK has risen by about 9 years. This, however, is only a very minute margin compared to an extra 80 years worth of life. Referring back to the part about the effects of rapid law changes related to the drug, you said that it may be a clinic only administered drug. There may be certain loopholes for the children desperate enough to have a shot of the drug. For example, they can wear and wear a moustache and say their parent's name under the Medicare card. Also coming back to what you said about letting those people already with a license to keep on driving, some people under the age limit may (with enough skills), forge a driver's license and then keep on driving. Other cases may include people who are in the middle of learning how to drive. Should they be put under charges because they do not possess a legitimate driver's license? OVERPOPULATION True, some areas we call uninhabitable right now may become an inhabitable piece of land when space is needed for the rising population. This however will not benefit a large proportion of people. For example, what kind of "uninhabitable" lands are you referring to? We shouldn't clear up rivers and lakes to make it an inhabitable piece of land. Other areas are simply impossible to make inhabitable (such as Antarctica). When you talked about the drug only becoming available to the developed states, I don't quite agree with you. The world right now is changing rapidly. What we see right now, we won't be seeing in the next decade or so. China, for example, is the most populated country, but the nation itself is rapidly improving. There have also been certain exceptions to China's one-child policy (for Shanghai) [1] which states that married couples that are both the only child of their parents to have children if they are Han Chinese. Also, China's one child policy has been made because they are TRYING to decline the population. The population in China has still been rising and hasn't gone down at all [2]. Some of the most highly developed countries (such as America and Australia) might not be at the top in the near future, and opportunities for other countries will appear. Having a child is definitely a big decision to make, but the drug itself would give the couples double the time opportunity to expand their family if they choose to. Remember, the drug makes you grow slower (half our current natural speed). HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES I agree, in the future, our world with the internet and social networking, other forms of jobs will come into existence, but there is a limit to the amount of jobs that can exist at one time. Also, the start of a new business based on a completely new job to society will require tremendous efforts and skills. The chances of success for this type of thing happening are also fairly low. You mentioned from your example that we have adapted cancer treatment that has then saved multiple lives from the past. This, however, is irrelevant to "harder job opportunities". I said, in my previous argument that we would fail to adapt to such a new society. There is also the fact that such a drug would cause an immediate change to society, THAT being why we would not be able to adapt. The society would change too rapidly for us humans to adapt to and cope with. We would be unsure as whether we should work for longer, start working again to support our children who have the opportunities for such a drug etc. ECONOMIC DIVIDE As mentioned by both of us, the drug is likely to be expensive, but the fact that global powers and charities will help Africa have access to it, I doubt (Perhaps just some parts of Africa, but not all). The population of Africa as a whole is about 984 million people [3]. Helping that many people have access to the drug is simply too difficult even with help from other developed nations. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS You stated that I was making an assumption that there will only be a RISK to the environment. That is true, but if it is a risk with such a big impact to our world, it is worth worrying about. Humans have only survived on the earth for about 2 millions years and have inflicted much damage to the atmosphere since the birth of gas-emitting technology (cars, for example). The earth itself is yet to live for at least four or so billion years [4]+[5]. The good thing is that recycling does happen, but there are also multiple non-recyclable wastes that we buy from our grocery stores [6]. Does this cover the remaining 68% of wastes that are not recycled? You mentioned that only 32% of wastes in the UK are being recycled. I would also like to point out that the amount of carbon emissions in Australia has been so overwhelming that it has caused our government to issue out a new law that involves the "carbon tax" [7]. This means some companies will also be taxed on the amount of carbon dioxide they release to the atmosphere. CONCLUSION: It is still, in my opinion, a drug that will be disadvantageous to our developing society. This drug will create an immense increase to our already populated earth in a very short period of time. Although new jobs may come into existence, job opportunities will still become harder for the younger people and future generations. It will create a bigger gap between the rich from the poor and lastly, our earth will be harmed from the technology we humans will be using to help our growing population. REFERENCES: 1.http://ilookchina.net... 2.http://www.google.com.au... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.http://wiki.answers.com... 5.http://www.universetoday.com... 6.http://www3.jkl.fi... 7.http://www.aph.gov.au... And, to you, CrazyTool...