3 ms·

Is the creepy lable being attached to this idea because transfusion services are only currently used by people with higher income/assets? Would this still be cr

Is the creepy lable being attached to this idea because transfusion services are only currently used by people with higher income/assets? Would this still be creepy if poorer people had access to it, or would we call it a human right? I don't think it's necessarily wrong to receive a cosmetic(?) blood transfusion if the parties involved agree to it, I don't think it's any less creepy than cosmetic surgery. Edit to say: if there's any efficacy in blood transfusions being useful for neurophysiological benefits, then this procedure should be available for medicinal purposes like enemas I think it's more efficient (and economical for a business) to use synthetic blood, though.

meowface 3y ago
It's just an instinctive aesthetic response people have. There's - as far as I can tell, based on this thread and many other things I've read - no rational reason behind it. It's all "billionaires bad" and "lol, vampires, weird". If someone has a genuine ethical concern, I'd be interested to hear it. As long as the donors are adequately compensated, I see no issue with it.
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  The only universal equalizer that has held for eternity is that we all die. Look at the power and wealth amassed by hegemons over the millennia. The world we live in would be unrecognizable (in the worst way imaginable) if those with unlimited wealth and power also had unlimited life.
  - kiba 3y ago
    Power status is not dependent on long you live but your social status or inherited position. Social systems have a way of changing underneath you until it collapses.
    - ComputerGuru 3y ago
      > Social systems have a way of changing underneath you until it collapses. From the beginning of time until now the statement was that you held power/money until it was taken from you or until you died (and you couldn't take anything with you regardless of how many riches you were buried with). You want to, of your own free will and volition, reduce it to just the "until it's taken away from you" part. Which leads me to conclude that either your viewpoint is incredibly naïve or you are at the very, very top of the totem pole and wish to preserve the status quo as long as possible.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > only universal equalizer that has held for eternity is that we all die We never died the same way or at the same age. Selection in biology invokes some individuals making it to breeding age while others don't.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
confounded 3y ago
The whole idea relies on a hierarchy of power so unnerving it's the basis of folklore across human cultures. Unlike costmetic surgery, your gain depends on someone else's loss. There are likely to be supply/demand issues in a society with where citizens have free access to each others blood for recreational purposes.
- Tenoke 3y ago
  >Unlike costmetic surgery, your gain depends on someone else's loss. How? The 'loss' from donating blood is fairly minimal. If properly compensated everyone could be coming out better off.

meowface 3y ago

It's just an instinctive aesthetic response people have. There's - as far as I can tell, based on this thread and many other things I've read - no rational reason behind it. It's all "billionaires bad" and "lol, vampires, weird". If someone has a genuine ethical concern, I'd be interested to hear it. As long as the donors are adequately compensated, I see no issue with it.

ComputerGuru 3y ago
The only universal equalizer that has held for eternity is that we all die. Look at the power and wealth amassed by hegemons over the millennia. The world we live in would be unrecognizable (in the worst way imaginable) if those with unlimited wealth and power also had unlimited life.
- kiba 3y ago
  Power status is not dependent on long you live but your social status or inherited position. Social systems have a way of changing underneath you until it collapses.
  - ComputerGuru 3y ago
    > Social systems have a way of changing underneath you until it collapses. From the beginning of time until now the statement was that you held power/money until it was taken from you or until you died (and you couldn't take anything with you regardless of how many riches you were buried with). You want to, of your own free will and volition, reduce it to just the "until it's taken away from you" part. Which leads me to conclude that either your viewpoint is incredibly naïve or you are at the very, very top of the totem pole and wish to preserve the status quo as long as possible.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > only universal equalizer that has held for eternity is that we all die We never died the same way or at the same age. Selection in biology invokes some individuals making it to breeding age while others don't.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

confounded 3y ago

The whole idea relies on a hierarchy of power so unnerving it's the basis of folklore across human cultures. Unlike costmetic surgery, your gain depends on someone else's loss. There are likely to be supply/demand issues in a society with where citizens have free access to each others blood for recreational purposes.

Tenoke 3y ago
>Unlike costmetic surgery, your gain depends on someone else's loss. How? The 'loss' from donating blood is fairly minimal. If properly compensated everyone could be coming out better off.