12 ms·

> I am utterly unconcerned by what people choose to do to their own bodies and minds. I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell

> I am utterly unconcerned by what people choose to do to their own bodies and minds. I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? "Voluntarily?" Also, I'm confident you think there should be limits on what children can choose to do with their bodies and minds, and I'm confident the line you draw would be as unsophisticated as an age.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
krastanov 5y ago
How is age not a sophisticated enough of a line (up to medical conditions and scams)? If someone has the right to vote and the right to bodily autonomy or basically any of the rights in the Bill of Rights, then that person should be able to do whatever they want (biohacking on themselves or even suicide included). Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. Compare this to mass scams: If many people are tricked (by a person or by a mass histeria) to do something, then it makes perfect sense to have a regulatory agency step in (e.g. FTC, FDA, SEC, etc). And compare that to people with a medical disability: if someone is permanently or temporarily mentally impaired, then some of these rights are curtailed.
- rileymat2 5y ago
  >Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. I suspect people generally agree with this, but will extend the "affecting only themselves" a degree out. Did a Father who orphans a child due to drug use only affect themselves? Did the narco terrorists who were funded by his purchase only affect himself?
  - echelon 5y ago
    Every choice in life ripples through eternity. Taking a job, quitting to start a company, walking back on a contractual relationship, marrying a partner. While it's true that the direction of impact has outsized and measurable impact on children and dependents, there are other interactions we can't even begin to fathom. Barry Marshall was criticized in the 80's for his H. pylori hypothesis. Then he drank some to prove his point, and now we know the cause of peptic ulcers and several stomach cancers. mRRNA self-experimentation is undoubtably risky and I wouldn't do it myself, but it may yield dividends even if it does induce disease state or kill some of those that attempt it. I don't think we should police it. Not when you can legally buy a car and drive it off a bridge. There are far worse things a person can do.
  - krastanov 5y ago
    I think this is a great jab at my argument and its main weakness. But I stand by it, because even in your example we have seen that countries that go for decriminalization and offer elective treatment do better. Compare Portugal's successes with decreasing hard drug use with US's failed war on drugs. Do not criminalize the things that make your society worse at scale, rather ensure the positive incentives draw your population in a better direction. I.e. carrot, not stick.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      What you've missed with this analogy is that the supply side is always worth criminalising, or at least regulating Edit: I'll walk this back to 'is always worth regulating'
      - rileymat2 5y ago
        This seems like a recipe for an even bigger black market, and various other issues that will come when an organization is running illegally, because of unblocked demand. Obviously, even in cases where it is illegal to both buy and sell we still have black markets, but making it ok to buy but not sell seems like a recipe for a giant black market.
        h0l0cube 5y ago
        True, but that's an argument for regulation
      - krastanov 5y ago
        No, that is the exact opposite of what I said. Instead of wasting resource on criminalizing the supply size, make the demand plummet by providing more enticing options. If there is demand for the drugs, you have already failed and criminalizing the supply is a non-functional bandaid. On the other hand, sure, regulating and ensuring tax revenue comes from the vice is not a bad idea (and it works ok for gambling, alcohol, and now pot too).
zamalek 5y ago
After a lot of thought a few years back about freedom, I started considering what future generations might fight for, or have. What do we consider immoral today, that would be considered immoral tomorrow? > I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? Freedom of destiny. If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. If a person requests assisted suicide when suffering from a terrible disease, then absolutely. Why should someone be forced to die in disgrace, purely to satisfy the dogmatic morals of those around them? Less moral systems force a certain life on people, but they argue that it is moral. We are forcing a certain death on people, and are arguing it's moral. This line of thinking is in line with the current zeitgeist, and the truth of the matter is that no zeitgeist will ever be perfect - but we can improve things by challenging our core morals (just as we did with slavery, women, LGTBQ+).
- maxerickson 5y ago
  If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? This is probably a reasonable medium term comparison to selling organs (where using someone else's flesh will become an aesthetic choice more than a necessity or the medically superior option).
  - endtime 5y ago
    > If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? What's the argument against allowing this? That it's distasteful? Edit: pun not intended, but noticed immediately and preserved.
    - arthurcolle 5y ago
      Because it's fucking weird? Sorry but we live in a civil society that shouldn't encourage this kind of stuff. At what point do these arguments become so reductive as to have little to no substance?
rkk3 5y ago
> I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? "Voluntarily?" If someone meets the criteria to donate organs, for free, why shouldn't they also be able to charge for it?
- shados 5y ago
  First, because they increase their chance of being a burden on society (giving a kidney isn't without significant risks). Same could be said of smoking or overeating, but "not" giving an organ is much easier than stopping those things. Second, because we know exactly how this would end up. Poor people would become de facto organ factories. Many would get coerced into it. Similar to prostitution. A lot of the same arguments (both for and against) would apply. Maybe it should be legal, but there's certainly a lot of nuance to consider.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > First, because they increase their chance of being a burden on society (giving a kidney isn't without significant risks) Sure its a serious operation but these points apply to donating a kidney as well. > Poor people would become de facto organ factories. If you don't think someone who is poor has the where with-all to sell their kidney, why should they be allowed to give it away for free?
- yissp 5y ago
  I think the general argument is that if someone is financially desperate, then it's not really voluntary. It's like asking why folks working under terrible conditions don't just quit.
gpm 5y ago
People selling their organs isn't them doing what they want with their own bodies and minds. It's them engaging in a mutli party business transaction where one person literally buys part of another person. Maybe we should make that sort of business transaction illegal, maybe we shouldn't, but it has no bearing on whether or not people should be allowed to do what they want with their own minds and bodies. People should be allowed to remove their own organs, it's only the selling (the business transaction) that you might (or might not) want to outlaw.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  And where do we draw the line? If I cut my hair can I sell it? I literally mutilated myself. Of course, hair is not a vital organ. What about a nose, then? Why not a kidney? (we've got a spare)
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    Your hair is constantly falling out and being replaced. Your nose and kidneys aren't. That seems like a wholly obvious line to draw.
senectus1 5y ago
what if one group of peoples messing with their own body creates the next new aids or coronavirus or whatever... whats the "GreyGoo" concept in biohacking.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

krastanov 5y ago

How is age not a sophisticated enough of a line (up to medical conditions and scams)? If someone has the right to vote and the right to bodily autonomy or basically any of the rights in the Bill of Rights, then that person should be able to do whatever they want (biohacking on themselves or even suicide included). Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. Compare this to mass scams: If many people are tricked (by a person or by a mass histeria) to do something, then it makes perfect sense to have a regulatory agency step in (e.g. FTC, FDA, SEC, etc). And compare that to people with a medical disability: if someone is permanently or temporarily mentally impaired, then some of these rights are curtailed.

rileymat2 5y ago
>Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it. I suspect people generally agree with this, but will extend the "affecting only themselves" a degree out. Did a Father who orphans a child due to drug use only affect themselves? Did the narco terrorists who were funded by his purchase only affect himself?
- echelon 5y ago
  Every choice in life ripples through eternity. Taking a job, quitting to start a company, walking back on a contractual relationship, marrying a partner. While it's true that the direction of impact has outsized and measurable impact on children and dependents, there are other interactions we can't even begin to fathom. Barry Marshall was criticized in the 80's for his H. pylori hypothesis. Then he drank some to prove his point, and now we know the cause of peptic ulcers and several stomach cancers. mRRNA self-experimentation is undoubtably risky and I wouldn't do it myself, but it may yield dividends even if it does induce disease state or kill some of those that attempt it. I don't think we should police it. Not when you can legally buy a car and drive it off a bridge. There are far worse things a person can do.
- krastanov 5y ago
  I think this is a great jab at my argument and its main weakness. But I stand by it, because even in your example we have seen that countries that go for decriminalization and offer elective treatment do better. Compare Portugal's successes with decreasing hard drug use with US's failed war on drugs. Do not criminalize the things that make your society worse at scale, rather ensure the positive incentives draw your population in a better direction. I.e. carrot, not stick.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    What you've missed with this analogy is that the supply side is always worth criminalising, or at least regulating Edit: I'll walk this back to 'is always worth regulating'
    - rileymat2 5y ago
      This seems like a recipe for an even bigger black market, and various other issues that will come when an organization is running illegally, because of unblocked demand. Obviously, even in cases where it is illegal to both buy and sell we still have black markets, but making it ok to buy but not sell seems like a recipe for a giant black market.
      - h0l0cube 5y ago
        True, but that's an argument for regulation
    - krastanov 5y ago
      No, that is the exact opposite of what I said. Instead of wasting resource on criminalizing the supply size, make the demand plummet by providing more enticing options. If there is demand for the drugs, you have already failed and criminalizing the supply is a non-functional bandaid. On the other hand, sure, regulating and ensuring tax revenue comes from the vice is not a bad idea (and it works ok for gambling, alcohol, and now pot too).

zamalek 5y ago

After a lot of thought a few years back about freedom, I started considering what future generations might fight for, or have. What do we consider immoral today, that would be considered immoral tomorrow? > I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? Freedom of destiny. If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. If a person requests assisted suicide when suffering from a terrible disease, then absolutely. Why should someone be forced to die in disgrace, purely to satisfy the dogmatic morals of those around them? Less moral systems force a certain life on people, but they argue that it is moral. We are forcing a certain death on people, and are arguing it's moral. This line of thinking is in line with the current zeitgeist, and the truth of the matter is that no zeitgeist will ever be perfect - but we can improve things by challenging our core morals (just as we did with slavery, women, LGTBQ+).

maxerickson 5y ago
If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? This is probably a reasonable medium term comparison to selling organs (where using someone else's flesh will become an aesthetic choice more than a necessity or the medically superior option).
- endtime 5y ago
  > If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? What's the argument against allowing this? That it's distasteful? Edit: pun not intended, but noticed immediately and preserved.
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    Because it's fucking weird? Sorry but we live in a civil society that shouldn't encourage this kind of stuff. At what point do these arguments become so reductive as to have little to no substance?

rkk3 5y ago

> I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? "Voluntarily?" If someone meets the criteria to donate organs, for free, why shouldn't they also be able to charge for it?

shados 5y ago
First, because they increase their chance of being a burden on society (giving a kidney isn't without significant risks). Same could be said of smoking or overeating, but "not" giving an organ is much easier than stopping those things. Second, because we know exactly how this would end up. Poor people would become de facto organ factories. Many would get coerced into it. Similar to prostitution. A lot of the same arguments (both for and against) would apply. Maybe it should be legal, but there's certainly a lot of nuance to consider.
- rkk3 5y ago
  > First, because they increase their chance of being a burden on society (giving a kidney isn't without significant risks) Sure its a serious operation but these points apply to donating a kidney as well. > Poor people would become de facto organ factories. If you don't think someone who is poor has the where with-all to sell their kidney, why should they be allowed to give it away for free?
yissp 5y ago
I think the general argument is that if someone is financially desperate, then it's not really voluntary. It's like asking why folks working under terrible conditions don't just quit.

gpm 5y ago

People selling their organs isn't them doing what they want with their own bodies and minds. It's them engaging in a mutli party business transaction where one person literally buys part of another person. Maybe we should make that sort of business transaction illegal, maybe we shouldn't, but it has no bearing on whether or not people should be allowed to do what they want with their own minds and bodies. People should be allowed to remove their own organs, it's only the selling (the business transaction) that you might (or might not) want to outlaw.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago
And where do we draw the line? If I cut my hair can I sell it? I literally mutilated myself. Of course, hair is not a vital organ. What about a nose, then? Why not a kidney? (we've got a spare)
- meepmorp 5y ago
  Your hair is constantly falling out and being replaced. Your nose and kidneys aren't. That seems like a wholly obvious line to draw.

senectus1 5y ago

what if one group of peoples messing with their own body creates the next new aids or coronavirus or whatever... whats the "GreyGoo" concept in biohacking.