People should not live forever

Resource depletion and environmental pollutionThroughout my opponent's argument, he forgets that we will see a technological outbreak like no other. From the fact that most industries will no longer be necessary, there will be an influx of willing workers who will help out on developmental projects. The best apparent solution to the Pro's given problem of exhausting resources and living space, is to colonize Mars. Mars is actually surprisingly similar to Earth. The total surface area on Mars is about the same as the total landmass on Earth (although Mars does have a smaller radius). Time on Mars passes just like on Earth - a Martian day is about 24 hours and 40 minutes. The axial tilt is also similar, meaning that Mars has seasons like Earth. There also exists water ice on the surface. This brings us to the probability of terraforming Mars. I quote“In this paper we propose a mathematical model of the Martian CO2 system, and use it to produce analysis which clarifies the potential of positive feedback to accelerate planetary engineering efforts...We examine the potential of various schemes for producing the initial warming to drive the process, including the stationing of orbiting mirrors, the importation of natural volatiles with high greenhouse capacity from the outer solar system, and the production of artificial halocarbon greenhouse gases...It is concluded that a drastic modification of Martian conditions can be achieved using 21st century technology... Humans operating on the surface of such a Mars would require breathing gear, but pressure suits would be unnecessary. With outside atmospheric pressures raised, it will be possible to create large dwelling areas by means of very large inflatable structures. Average temperatures could be above the freezing point of water for significant regions during portions of the year, enabling the growth of plant life in the open. The spread of plants could produce enough oxygen to make Mars habitable for animals in several millennia. More rapid oxygenation would require engineering efforts supported by multi-terrawatt power sources. It is speculated that the desire to speed the terraforming of Mars will be a driver for developing such technologies, which in turn will define a leap in human power over nature as dramatic as that which accompanied the creation of post-Renaissance industrial civilization. [1]In a matter of years, the human race could colonize Mars without immortality. Industrialization is an example of our ability to adapt. Furthermore, if we were to become indifferent to harsh conditions such as heat, cold, radiation, etc, then we could very much live anywhere. The concept of ‘living space’ would become obsolete - as we wouldn’t have any more ‘necessities to survive’.Resource depletion and environmental pollution are all products of human necessity. If we were immortal, would there be any real reason to become greedy anymore? Nothing would be necessary. Not to mention, immortality would give a longer period of time for rehabilitation and teaching, so we could educate even those who would normally go unnoticed or oppressed. All crimes root from a person desire to live, although sometimes it might be from mental illness. The only possible problem with rehabilitation is that some people might not be able to change, but on the bright side, murders would become impossible.Aging PopulationMy opponent makes the argument that people will 'retire' and still age. The mere meaning of eternal life is anti-aging. If people were to start losing functionality at the age of 85, that would imply that their bodies weren't built for immortality and mean that they are still fragile, which is contrary to my interpretation of immortality. Besides, replacing body parts with bionic parts is already existent, and in a few decades, technology will rapidly change. Therefore, birth control is a legitimate solution for a while. Technological Advances If scientists achieve immortality, that would spark a great interest in that field. We can expect more scientists who want to benefit humanity. My opponent never 'analyzed' why the labor age will stay the same or why people will continue to age at a rapid rate. Pro simply asserted them as facts.It seems more logical that governments will adjust to the fact that everybody becomes immortal. In fact, there may no longer be governments, since they will no longer have any military power over the average human. A bigger population also means more people who want to study in the field of science. Naturally, as populations grow, the popular field of work becomes more saturated. With immortality, the field of science would be overflowing, because it would easily become the most popular choice. There would also be a multitude of those in the medical profession who might switch over to bionic, biological study, etc. My opponent also hasn't responded to the fact that he is fine with people dying simply because he doesn't want to share the resources with them. Overpopulation is fine, if it means we are saving lives.[1] http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk...