Anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society

When it comes to discussing this matter on anti-aging drugs, we must first look at its future effects on our world. Some of the major things that would occur include: 1. New laws 2. Overpopulation 3. Harder job opportunities (as well when we will enter retirement) 4. Benefit only the rich which will further the gap between rich and poor even more 5. Make it harder for us to take care of our earth 6. It is a powerful drug, expect consequences! NEW LAWS In my opinion, this drug will implement immediate changes to our laws. For example, a much older age limit for drinking, smoking, learning how to drive and other age-related laws. And, if this drug was to be legal only to people over a certain age (say, about 18-20), what's going to stop parents from giving their children this drug? It is almost impossible for us to find out whether children are taking it. I'd say most parents would rather pass away before their children. If new laws do take place, what will happen to some of those people who will then be "disobeying the law? " For example, if the law changed so that you can only learn how to drive or drive once you are 30 because you will not be responsible enough for your own safety, what will happen to those people who are under 30 with a driving license? Teenagers, uni students and those who are in their late 20s would think of this new law as "unfair" as they have spent time and money to learn how to drive and also acquire the license itself. OVERPOPULATION The biggest issue is overpopulation. Men and women would still be fit enough to have more children if they want to even when they are about 70 or 80 years old which would lead to a much larger population within just a decade or two. Families could have up to 6 or 7 generations living at one time (which I find rather creepy). If we slow down our bodies from aging, our bodies will also be able to reproduce for more years of our life. We will be physically fit enough to have more babies if we choose to. This is because we are keeping menopause further away from us. HARDER JOB OPPOTUNITIES Secondly, a much longer life (more than double our current expected lifespan of 70) would also mean a much later retirement. This makes harder work opportunities for younger people who are looking for jobs (e. g. uni graduates, high school dropouts, tafe students etc. ) as we would need more money to support ourselves and also a family for those who are married. This would lead to a brand new society that I think we will not be able to adapt to. The bigger the population as a whole, the more families must be raised. The longer people must work, the harder it will be for young people to find new jobs to start raising their own family. If it becomes harder for us to raise our families because of what this drug is going to do, this drug has created a big disadvantage for our world. BENEFIT ONLY THE RICH This is also an opinion based argument. But, I think such a drug is more than likely to cost quite a lot of money which will then leave the poorer areas such as Africa without such possibilities for extending their already short lifespans. It will further the gap between rich countries from poor countries even more. If, for some reason, the drug is a cheap and therefore a very affordable drug (or even free), it will therefore lead to a much higher population growth. That, in turn, will also increase the risk polluting our earth which will be explained in my next argument. Another problem with this drug being affordable is how we are going to reward the scientists that created this drug for us to use? Some research says that this drug will be available in the next 5-10 years. The scientists involved with creating such a drug will need to be rewarded for their efforts in creating such an evolutionary drug. DAMAGE OUR EARTH A bigger population is likely to lead to a bigger risk of polluting our earth. The more people living, the more mouths must be fed to our growing population. The more mouths to be fed, the more we'll benefit from technology. The more we use technology, the more the earth's atmosphere will be polluted from bad substances such as methane gas, carbon dioxide, CFCs etc. It is an ongoing chain reaction that leads to major disadvantages, not advantages. CONSEQUENCES Lastly, it is in my opinion that if such a powerful drug were to come into existence, it will have severe consequence to our bodies if we take it often. Our bodies will become reliant on the drug and we will start craving on the substances within the drug just for the sakes of surviving longer. A simple comparison can be made to the prescription only drug, Lamasil. It will help remove fungus from infected areas (such as finger nails and toe nails), but will, in turn, weaken the taker's liver as a result from taking it. This is quite an extreme example, but it shows us what such an evolutionary drug COULD do once it is out to the market. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the anti-aging drug WILL NOT benefit our improving society. Our world will suffer both an immense and immediate overpopulation which will also lead to other disadvantages. There will also be an immediate difference to people's job opportunities and job periods. It will further the gap between poorer countries from richer countries even more. The drug will make it harder for us to look after our dear planet earth and lastly, we will experience bodily consequences in the long run when we take this drug. This is my argument and why I think anti-aging drugs would not be beneficial to society as the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages. Thank you for reading my debate. And, to you, CrazyTool…