Instigator / Pro
8
1432
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Topic
#1723

Curing aging would be on balance beneficial to society

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

whiteflame
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
6,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1724
rating
27
debates
88.89%
won
Description

Some people think curing aging would be bad for society, due to concerns about overpopulation, wealth disparities and other reasons. If that description fits you or feels like something you could argue well, please accept my debate.

The resolution should read, "radical life extension would be beneficial to society". This assumes that radical life extension would be realistic and similar to what is described in the following debate in my first argument https://www.debateart.com/debates/1719/radical-life-extension-is-more-likely-than-not-in-our-lifetime

It is based on Kurzweil's predictions of what radical life extension would look like. The spirit of the debate should be centered around Kurzweil's views of what radical life extension would look like in the following article https://www.therecord.com/news-story/6552546--radical-life-extension-coming-futurist-says/

The spirit of that article and this following TED talk should be appropriate in determining what the spirit of this debate is about. https://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_a_roadmap_to_end_aging?language=en

I am not looking to debate anything hypothetical, but what radical life extension would look like in the real world.

If whiteflame accepts this debate and feels like I did not argue to this spirit or that I moved the goal posts, he should be declared the winner based solely on his belief that I did not keep to the spirit or that I moved the goal posts.

-->
@Singularity

Well, if we change over to the question of pursuing immortality, that’s a different issue entirely. That being said, if we somehow got to a future where we could guarantee just 10 people would never grow old, I don’t know if that’s a good thing. 10 people could not repopulate the world just due to the shrunken gene pool alone, any of those 10 could still die due to external causes, and living an immortal life sounds like a nightmare, to be honest. Definitely don’t agree with the perspective that we’re all basically dead already simply because our lives are finite. In the grand scheme that may be true, but I think that undervalues life in general. Simply because it ends doesn’t mean it lacks meaning.

Of course my policy of reckless speed in pursuit of radical life extension is because the faster we get it done the less people die. Honestly I consider us all dead,so would sacrifice the world if it meant immortality for just 10 people not even known to me. In that case it is a choice between everyone dead or everyone but 10 people dead

-->
@whiteflame

I agree with a lot of that. That wasn't my response though just me checking myself for understanding so I could write a valid response. Some things I felt like were true is that the FDA has considered aging a disease recently which will allow it to regulate the market more on those anti aging schemes as well as just when doctors are involved in something they usually have the political power to get there way with mixed bad good results. The results in this case would stop supplement companies for example from competing with them, but in the past have blocked nurse practitioners from filling the gap created by having too few general practitioner doctors.

I do personally think the ends justify the means but would not attempt a persuasive argument around it. Certainly I would argue for not allowing the means we are most likely to take from deterring us from good goals, but instead be aware of the negative means and short term effects of pursuing big goals, so we can mitigate the damage done in obtaining the goal as well as in completion of the goal.

-->
@Singularity

If you had gone this route in terms of responses, I would have changed up my tactics a bit, though it would have still sounded similar.

The argument that we can cause as much harm as we want right now as long as we reach some possible future utopia is a dangerous one. I usually don't do this because I think the comparison is used too broadly, but it's the same mentality as that used by Nazi Germany: if we can make a perfect future, it doesn't matter how much damage we cause now. I'm not equating your argument with that mentality, but it does have a similar ring to it - sacrificing the now and the short term future for a long term benefit. It's a classic deontological argument: the ends cannot justify the means because it's never OK to use bodies as stepping stones to some future utopia. You can argue that we save more lives in the long run, but a basic numbers game wouldn't necessarily win you this point, especially because there's a lot of "what if's" involved in just how many people will benefit and to what extent they would. In general, I think the point that we should sacrifice known lives in the present for future unknown (but potentially much larger) benefits to people we likely will never meet is a tough pill to swallow.

But a lot of my points would still stand regardless, especially my second and third point. Even if we could guarantee equal access to these technologies, that access does not address basic questions of how the market will engage with the presence of technologies like this, nor how societies will handle the greater burden of more people who aren't working. I think you had opportunities to address both of those. Remember, we're talking about some future theoretical world. Regulations on life-expanding technologies aren't nearly as theoretical as I made them out to be; companies can and have gotten approval for stem cell therapies and gene therapies, and those markets are tightly regulated, so you could have argued that the same would occur with life expanding tech. That would also do a lot to differentiate between tech that has gone through clinical trials and the snake oil products. As for retirement, life spans have increased dramatically in the last century and a lot of societies have managed that growing elderly population to varying degrees of success. The main difference here is two-fold: it would happen much more rapidly, and it would be in a world that's already overburdened with aging populations. You could have argued that there would be growing pains, but that they could be managed. Altering the age at which people receive benefits like Social Security and Medicare, finding new and exciting ways for aged populations to contribute to GDP after retirement, or modifying how we view the whole concept of aging as a society could all be effective responses. None of them are perfect, but they would have done a lot to mitigate my points.

-->
@whiteflame

A lot of your arguments seem to stem from a different view of short term vs long term. For me I picture the end result. I don't think it matters how much damage it takes to achieve a good ends. The ends justify the means pretty much. I have seen the same arguments used against a one world government.

It doesn't seem to be the long term benefits and harms you look at, but the short term harms. Mainly a few decades of a market that is more exploitative than what is typical. Even the long period that may come after that where the technology cannot be distributed equally among the rich and the poor. You also seem concerned about the effects of pooling our resources to battle the effects of aging when more important projects that could improve the world immediately such as clean drinking water for everyone should be done.

Am I getting the overall bird's eye view of your arguments correctly?

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks

-->
@Singularity

My availability is going to drop drastically on Friday, so I think it’s best to do it via the forums. Happy to discuss it further.

-->
@whiteflame

I thought about some responses to your objections. Would you be interested in extending this conversation through another debate, PMs or in open forums? I am particularly interested in your responses because of your educational background and interest in bioethics. I want to make a post later responding to the objection and see what your criticisms are, if you even have any.

-->
@blamonkey

Thank you both for voting and for the extensive RFD!

Yeah I understand that the public dole was the issue, that was pretty clear. That is why I worded my question the way I did with emphasis on the 'god/bad for society over individuals' aspect. I still think I had a valid point but you are right that we should not talk too much about it while in the voting period and like I said I only skimmed it and will be reading more closely later, perhaps something you said already will change my mind.

-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

I appreciate the input, though I will say that that was not the point I was trying to make. I did say that a greater disease burden is a problem, but the point has more to do with the impact of longer periods of time spent on the public dole. I don’t want to get into specifics because it’s not my aim to influence voters, but I do explain why this is a problem and what effects it would have.

Have not read the entire debate yet. I did skim it though and noticed one of cons arguments was that increased lifespans increase the chance of people eventually becoming afflicted with some form of disease. This seems silly to me. Let's take cancer for example. If aging is cured but cancer is not cured then more people are likely to end up with cancer as their lives progress, yes this is true. If you are saying that trading death for cancer is a net negative however then you are by definition saying that a bunch of people with cancer is litterally worse for society than a bunch of people dying. If this is the case then would con be willing to advocate for the euthenasia of people that have cancer today (without a cure for aging)? Why or why not? I do understand that it is an argument from the point of view of what is more beneficial for society (a person dying or a person having cancer) and not what is more beneficial for the individual. My question remains.

I will be reading through this debate entirely at some point, though probably will not be voting on it. I hope pro brought up something along the lines of what I just did.

-->
@coal

Thank you for voting!

-->
@coal

Thanks for taking the time to read and vote on the debate

-->
@whiteflame

Glad you enjoyed it

Sounds like that could have been interesting. Oh well, still enjoyed doing it, very interesting topic.

Just discovered some new evidence that our body isn't so much breaking down, as it is it seems to actually be turning on us at a certain point to destroy itself. I would have loved to apply that concept to the debate.

Figured it would give me more time as well to address the next round. No rush on this, though I aim to finish this before I have to get back to work in earnest.

Glad you responded early. Now hopefully Rational madman responds late so I can have more than plenty time for both

Me too

-->
@Singularity

I figured as much. Given the title, it seemed like you wanted to go down the road of “if we assume this is going to happen, is it a good thing?” I think having a debate over whether something should happen automatically means that both sides accept that it could. Besides, it’s the reason I accepted. A technical debate about the feasibility of these technologies is fine, but I find the bioethics of it fascinating.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you, this is the direction I wanted the debate to take and am happy you did not do anything to take the debate off course

Not sure about the round on my end. Might be out tomorrow.

-->
@Singularity

Same.

I might be able to get my first round out tonight

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks for accepting. I look forward to this debate.

-->
@Singularity

Regardless of the framing, that question will feature in the debate. It's mainly just a question of what else will be in here. I'll accept.

The goal is to debate whether the fall out from radical life extension is worth it. If the debate doesn't go as planned, oh well. That is just the nature of the beast

-->
@whiteflame

I'm fine with that, and look forward to debating you

-->
@Singularity

Truth be told, I probably wouldn’t do that regardless because it’s never my aim to win a debate simply by exploiting a debate faux pas. It’s always my goal to have a good debate first and foremost, which is why I messaged you about this. I’d rather ensure that we’re both on the same page about the topic from the start. That being said, while you are welcome to post the specifics of your case in the opening round (in terms of being specific on what you’re supporting), that’s your choice. I do have some idea of what you’re going for now, though it’s still somewhat vague given just how much information is here to leaf through. If I accepted this, I would expect you to specify some things. If you leave things like what the technology will actually be able to do and what we can expect the availability to be out of that opening round, you’d be giving me room to define them for you, and you really won’t want that. Just giving you the heads up.

-->
@whiteflame

updated, tough for me to find the words to make it any more clear than that, and the debate gives you an advantage of declaring yourself victor if you think I did not argue in the spirit of the debate or engaged in moving goal posts or other forms of trickery

-->
@Singularity

Cool. Just let me know when you update it and I'll take a look.

By 10pm eastern it will be fixed

-->
@whiteflame

Okay, when I get home I will try to describe that in the description a bit better so there is less fear of me moving the goal posts.

-->
@Singularity

The main difference between that debate and this one is that we’re assuming a cure exists. The nice thing about that is that we don’t have to get into much discussion of the how, at least insofar as we assume that what accomplishes the task will be successful. What I’m getting at, and what you’ve partially answered, is the extent to which said cure is effective at countering the effects of aging. You can set that “value” wherever you want and establish its availability without adhering to what the most likely treatment would look like. I’d just like to know what I’m facing if I do accept this, as the topic has more to do with what comes after than what it is, but what comes after is in some ways defined by what it is.

Although I made changes to make alec happy to debate me previously and he still opted out, which was disappointing.

-->
@whiteflame

I gave the debate a more generic title to fish for interest. I am referring to gradual advances in fighting aging that would be things like nanobots to dispense drugs or to repair cellular damage. I presuppose these technologies would be voluntary, unavailable to people in third world countries or poor people in first world countries for a very very long time. I also assume they would not be completely effective. In my current o going debate my first argument gives you an ideal of what I envision these advances in healthcare would look like. I am certainly willing to alter anything about the debate to make these things more clear if you have a specific suggestion for how to do so

-->
@Singularity

What would this “cure” look like? What, specifically, would they be “cured” of? Would they simply be immune to all aging related diseases? Would the rate of aging, or effects thereof that are distinct from specific diseases (bone depletion, muscle wasting, etc.) also be diminished? Is this “cure” automatically available to everyone all the time? In what form is it available? Or are we just assuming blanket “what if everyone was just suddenly cured of aging-related diseases in perpetuity”? If it is the latter, would you invite discussion of the sudden appearance of what is basically deific intervention into human lives? I don’t mean to push this too hard, but depending on your answers, there are a lot of different avenues that can open up or close in debating this.

Never heard of it

Now I've got "A brick could fall and break your skull..." from the Lexx musical episode going through my head.