• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is aging research ethical?

It is for the foreseeable future, whereas significant life extension is possible in the foreseeable future.

No one says that, but people will. If they cared that much about the limitations of the planet, they'd have already stopped by now. We already have significant blight, drought, contamination, and starvation because of what we've done to the planet. There have already been human populations who have gone extinct due to destroying their own environment.

If people haven't learned already, they're not going to. So how do you propose we're going to suddenly see the light when people are living for 200 years?

The birth rate in much of the first world, including Europe, America and Asia is already below the replacement rate (roughly 2.1 births/woman) and it appears, at least on the surface, that birth rates start to decline as countries become more wealthy and women more educated, so I really don't see any reason to assume that radical increases in lifespan necessarily will lead to radically higher populations. Such treatments would naturally be confined, at least initially, to wealthy nations and when they were available to currently poorer nations it would most likely be at point where their incomes and education levels have risen and their birth rates have presumably declined.

Without a attendant increase in overall population the problems you cite still exist but they don't get any worse.
 
Hm.
Live longer, healthier lives
vs
enforce a 2 person average birth license

I'm going with longer, healthier life and 2 kids. Seems like a no-brainer, but then, we do have a large no-brain segment of our population.

It's unethical NOT to try and thwart the source of all evil (death).
 
And what if it's impossible to travel between the stars?

If they stop people from aging then travel between the stars in ones life time is quite possible. After all, you don't age. ;) Technically we can reach other stars with today's technology. It would just take several life times to do so. It would take what is called a generation ship.
 
If they stop people from aging then travel between the stars in ones life time is quite possible. After all, you don't age. ;) Technically we can reach other stars with today's technology. It would just take several life times to do so. It would take what is called a generation ship.

Would you run out of air to breathe or run out of food first?
 
Would you run out of air to breathe or run out of food first?

Neither. Trees, plants, algae etc etc all produce oxygen and given the right plants can grow food.

If you were thinking that it'd be a small ship like the shuttles we used previously you'd be thinking wrong. ;)
 
Would you run out of air to breathe or run out of food first?
Why not just institute limits on births? Who needs more than a few kids *at most* anyway, when we're talking dramatically longer and healthier lives? Some people will want 0, and some will get more, but at the end of the day, if we need population control we need population control. How would that possibly outweigh quality/longevity?
 
Neither. Trees, plants, algae etc etc all produce oxygen and given the right plants can grow food.

If you were thinking that it'd be a small ship like the shuttles we used previously you'd be thinking wrong. ;)

But how will the plants get sunlight and where will the electricity come from?

This all sounds like some kind of Star Trek nerd wet dream and not anything realistic to me.
 
But how will the plants get sunlight and where will the electricity come from?

This all sounds like some kind of Star Trek nerd wet dream and not anything realistic to me.

How do people grow plants in their basement? Know how many pot plants are grown in basements in America alone? Millions. All you need to grow plants without the sun is the right kind of lighting and heat. Here's a website dedicated to selling grow lights: Grow Lights & Grow Light Kits. Here's a website that explains and details how to grow plants without sunlight: Kinds of Light to Grow Plants Indoor Without Sunlight Point is that if you can grow plants in your basement then you can grow plants in space without sunlight.

As for power...lots of ways to get electricity. Currently the most feasible way to do it in space if you're not going to be around the sun is nuclear power. Have lots of those running in the world. I'm sure I don't need to link to any of those to prove that to ya do I? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom