Anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society

1.New laws 2.Overpopulation 3.Harder job opportunities 4.Economic divide 5.Environmental factors 6.Conclusions 7.References NEW LAWS I understand what your definition is, but as I have stated twice already and with references, what anti-aging research has shown is that it keeps cells younger and aids regeneration which gives the impression of youth. This will indeed mean that you live longer but it doesn't mean that maturity is halted, which is why I asked you twice to support your claims. While you may wish to dismiss my argument which I referenced to some sources as "only a theory" it does have more support and backing that the way you have presented it, as evidenced by the lack of sources you have cited with regards to maturity. As for inconvenience, it happens all the time in law, it wouldn't really matter, yeah you'd have some kids disappointed but such is life. In 2007, the PPR suggested that the UK drinking age should be increased to 21 [1], this would have been seen as an inconvenience to those who wanted to legally drink. OVERPOPULATION I must question your reference on Antarctica being the only habitable country by 2100, the original article from the Independent has been removed, most likely because of misquoting and misrepresentation, [2] so I have nothing further to say to this. As for temperatures, yes, the insulation would be enough, if you consider that a city has a lot of buildings and if those buildings are heated, then the streets would be warmer so extremes might not be as extreme. Regardless of this, I believe that insulation would be enough and we have developed the fabrics to cope with them. Tamworth is but one example and 46 houses, if you have families of 4 is housing for 184 people, it's not much when you compare to billions, sure, but there are bigger cities with empty lots and land, I don't need to list them all, the space is there. HARDER JOB OPPORTUNITIES Executioners are still around in countries that have the death penalty and in countries where it's rare, this will have to advertise for it [3] so that's not a dead profession, nor is magazine journalism, that job can evolve into online magazine journalism, there's no reason why it can't. You stated that the poor will find it harder than the rich to get jobs because of lack of education and skills, this is a political issue, not really related to age but there are countries that support students with grants to go to college and university, so there is no reason why they can't come out with the same qualification. ECONOMIC DIVIDE Education is on the rise in Africa as well [4] and wells are being built by charities across the world for fresh water; these things are becoming less of a problem. But poor living conditions do lead to lower life expectancies, which anti-aging drugs can assist with. Longer lives mean that a cultural shift will happen to get away from large families, as has been previously stated. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS It is rare for plastics to be burned now, as they give off toxic chemicals to both the environment and to animals, they are still deposited in landfills however and this does still release toxins. But more to the point, more and more people are doing something about it, 13.9 million people in the UK participate in recycling collections [5] which will probably keep increasing, so it will become less of an issue. CONCLUSION You raised a lot of points, most of which was pure speculation with no facts provided on issues such as how it would be harmful and ridiculous statements such as a child putting on a fake moustache to get the drug. I raised a number of points as to why it would be beneficial, such as these four, some of which largely went unnoticed by my opponent. 1: Giving couples longer to think about the important decision of having a child. 2: Allowing companies to keep on aging staff to train up younger staff. 3: Speed up cultural change in Africa away from large families. 4: Reduced cancer risk. Inconveniencing the world with new laws is a huge leap, it would only affect a few generations of teenagers, this argument is very wishy-washy, as I have stated, there have been other laws that youths may have felt inconvenienced by, so this would be no different. Overpopulation was answered and some points ignored as well as the usage of a poorly research reference which cites something out of context and the original for it has since been removed. If the Earth can support 9 billion people by 2300 as claimed in this debate, we may have come a long way in terms of population distribution; it's too far ahead to make any real claim on if the Earth will be overpopulated. Jobs will evolve, this much I have stated, with the rise of social networking and other forms of internet activities, there are plenty of what may become unskilled jobs to come out. These drugs are also not going to cause any shift in economic divide nor will they cause any greater harm to the environment, I am positive this much has been made clear. I believe my opponent has failed to show why this form of drug would be a bad idea and as such, I would ask you to vote CON, thank you to those reading and to my opponent, I hope everyone involved enjoyed this debate. REFERENCES [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.daverado.mvps.org... [3] http://www.metro.co.uk... [4] http://www.universityworldnews.com... [5] http://www.recoup.org...