3 ms·

From the article you linked > We’re all for saving lives—we aren’t saying that we should stop self-driving cars so we can preserve a source of organ donation. B

• SilasX 2y ago
  It doesn’t matter how much they try to walk it back and not sound so criminally insane. Refer again to my second paragraph: The issue is, would the author ever think of writing this article for any other instance of saving lives? If not, then it’s a case of selective focus, the same problem in this submission. I mean, why not just say the organ shortage is bad, without pointing the finger at the latest hip, hot button issue, out of all the possible life-savers?
  • bombcar 2y ago
    You could also use some other way of looking at the problem instead of "lives". For example, from some morbidly accounted points of view, reducing deaths of able-bodied young people by incidentally increasing deaths of older, organ-needing people results in more "able-bodied life years" saved or something. Of course, down this path too far and you start looking at prisoners and death sentences and organ harvesting, which I think most people would agree ain't right.
  • rat87 2y ago
    I dont think they are walking anything back. They seem a lot more positive about self driving cars then a lot of people. The controversial part of the article for most would be the suggestion to an allow organ market The article is part of a series about challenges with future technologies. They note that 1/5 of donations come from traffic accidents and there is already a major shortage. If self driving cars reduce most accidents that will mean nearly 1/5 of donations will need to be replaced