> I'm sure Nazi Germany surely fires for some after such statement as it does for me, but they did not minimize suffering. We should. We should just allow peopl

> I'm sure Nazi Germany surely fires for some after such statement as it does for me, but they did not minimize suffering. We should. We should just allow people to take risk if they want to. We allow skydiving and trying to climb Mount Everest. Why not allow to take it with benefit to other humans. The problem is that incentive structures of profit, monopoly, and power accumulation mean that people will get put into economic situations where they might do this to get out of desperation or not being well informed enough. Regulation will not work well enough, and we can't proceed assuming it might. We can't engage in such risky/dystopian behavior unless we can reduce the risk of systematic abuse, and right now we definitely can't. For example: We now are so much more productive than any time in history because of automation, but our work-life balance has not significantly improved. The US (and I'm assuming other) economies are structured in a way that 0 employment would mean extremely high inflation, so they intentionally increase unemployment instead of curtailing price-gouging. The impact will not only be abuse in terms of negative outcomes for "volunteers", but the ugly psychological impact on everyone the more hellish the bottom of the economy becomes as people become desperate to avoid it. Why don't we slice apart one perfectly healthy human to save 10? Maybe their family will be rich. Suicide becomes noble. Blood, kidneys, livers, eyes, etc. What if someone is coerced? The practical consequences of what you are suggesting are abhorrent.