Biologically Immortal Humans

Ok, I would normally trounce my opponent for stating an entire argument in a scientific debate without stating a single source, but I know what he says to be true, even though they support my arguments. To make things easier for everyone, my rebuttals will be thematic, not by sentences, and they will also be my contentions. a) Immortality is impossible b) Immortality is immoral c) Immortality works against the betterment of human civilisation In simple English, what my opponent is saying in the first paragraph is that the ribonucloidprotein telomerase can be used to stop aging. look at this video if you do not know how DNA reproduction works: http://www.youtube.com... What he proposes, is that we use telomerase to lengthen the lagging strand and replace its DNA, so a cell will have the ability to reproduce without losing length. My rebuttal for his notion that this is a way to be immortal will also be my first contention: 1: It won’t make you immortal. My opponent has agreed to the definition of immortal that we will use for the course of this debate by not disagreeing with it. The definition states: ' exempt from death.' Using the ribonucloidprotein, aside from being illegal, the user will still not be exempt from death. Furthermore, although telomerase will ensure a near perfect replication of a cell that will allow it to go past its Hayflick limit, [1] nothing else is will be able to continue living without degrading. DNA has multiple systems that are required to work in order for its survival. There are systems that correct faulty DNA, systems that replace broken DNA and everything else required for the DNA to work. But there is nothing to see to the maintenance of the maintenance systems. So over time, they will eventually die. Then the DNA will be subject to decay. The only exception to this is the Turritopsis nutricula, [2] otherwise known as the immortal jellyfish. This jellyfish attains biological immortality by growing younger when it gets old. This won't work in humans though. 1.1: Immortality is achieved by removing apoptosis altogether, non-cells don't die, they degrade. The main problem faced by people who want biological immortality is not that we can't defeat apoptosis in cells -we can- but that we cannot negate apoptosis in non-cellular members of the body. Apoptosis is where a cell commits suicide [3] because it is either suffering from too much damage outside the cells, or flaws inside it. The integration of telomerase into cells will cease their ability to commit suicide against internal flaws from frayed DNA. 1.1.1: The cell will still kill itself due to exterior damage, which means it cannot fit the agreed upon definition of immortal. 1.1.2: Other things inside the cell will cause it to die aside from imperfect replications of itself, refer to argument 1.0. 1.1: So while the cell will not die from suicide, that only leaves a large fraction of the body in the safe zone. All of our senses will degrade, all our joints and bones will degrade, the protective lining of our stomach will degrade etc... This will result in death. I will not accept robotic replacements as a rebuttal due to the fact that: a) It involves a completely new debate b) It defeats the purpose of biological immortality c) This debate is about humans, not robot humans. 1.2: Experiments are immoral; we cannot indefinitely say what will happen to humans if we activated this riobonucloidprotein in them while they are still a foetus. In this debate, we will assume that the laws of the UN are the base view/belief, and since it is outlawed there, it is also to be considered wrong by both parties of this debate, for sake of staying on topic. So since an experiment on a human to allow this is immoral, my claim that immortality is immoral is affirmed here. For the sake of argument, I will propose why experiments on human babies are immoral. >Human babies cannot disagree to be tested on, and if they survive, any negative or unwanted effects of the experiment are forced unto them, which is a violation of the human’s basic rights. 1.3: Cancer will be a problem, the main difference between a normal cell and a cancerous cell is that telomerase is active. Another argument in my favour is that these cancerous cells are an example of cell mortality. Cancer cells eventually die even though they have the ability to reproduce perfectly, the bottom line is that these cells are mortal and do not fit the definition of immortal. 1.4: It is not possible with modern-day technology, so my opponent’s claim that we can make humans immortal is wrong. We cannot definitively know that we will one day be able to either, it seems possible, but we cannot know, so any claim that my opponent makes that sounds like: 'It will be possible one day,' will be invalid. 2: Immortality is immoral Assuming that immortality was possible, the natural human characteristics of greed will show itself in all its colours in a human who cannot be killed. There is no such thing as a perfect human; making humans immortal will always have bigger risk for the reward. In my next contention I will demonstrate why this 'reward' is non-existent. So in essence, immortality seeks to cause an elite class of humans that are above all else. One might as well argue that they are not humans, they definitely are not regular humans and they are very different to other normal races of humans. The only way for it to be moral is if we make everyone immortal, in which case some humans would try to be normal whereas many others would wreak havoc on the world. 3: Immortality would work against the betterment of human civilisation. We can enjoy being alive due to the fact that others are dead. This world simply cannot sustain a constant growth of human population. According to the Population Reference Bureau's "2010 World Population Data Sheet" (28-Jul-2010), per year: 140.4 million are born, 56.7 million die, (net increase 83.6 million) there is too much life, not enough death. Now if we stopped 56.7 million people from dying, then there would be 197.1 million people contributing to humanities reproducing flood each year. Even as it is we are having trouble sustaining the world, in fact, we fail to adequately sustain 2/7ths of the world. Such a huge flood of people would make life impossible on earth. The only way to survive is to improve technology and infrastructure. But that takes centuries, millennia’s even, by that time; all the immortal humans would have starved to death along with the normal ones (if there are any left). Concluding, there is no viable way we have to make ourselves immortal, there is always a way to kill a human, there is no way to immortalise a human morally, and do so without ruining earth. Vote Con. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://science.howstuffworks.com...