You could take almost anyone, really. Just measure every citizen according to their contributions to society, and when four productive and useful citizens have

You could take almost anyone, really. Just measure every citizen according to their contributions to society, and when four productive and useful citizens have need of a heart, a liver, two kidneys and a pancreas between them, just harvest a citizen that's not as productive as all of these four combined. Of course, you maximize utility by choosing someone who does not contribute a lot to society, and _ideally_ someone who is a net negative. That's a win-win situation. The West is incredibly wasteful with our pie-in-the-sky dreamy research on artificial organs, when such a net positive solution is readily available. It's frightening that a moral argument can be made along these lines. Does anyone really subscribe to this view? I am unfamiliar with Eastern philosophy, but this seems ludicrous.