Opinions

[Jorster]

I saw this earlier and it got me thinking that that is pretty much exactly my point of view
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2i6p25/what_do_you_feel_is_the_most_fucked_up_thing/ckzc92r

I guess that means I'm a sociopath, that'd probably explain my lack of empathy. Anyways, What are your guys points of view on this?

[atomic7732]

I think the key phrase here is "if that's the only way," which is usually not the case.

"Necessity is the mother of invention." In my opinion, if something needs to get done, we'll find a way, and we'll strike a balance between ethics and progress.

[Jorster]

My main issue with the things that occur now is that there's so much opposition no matter what you try. We live in an overly politically correct/concerned society and it's hampering progress. I think that the most efficient way to get anything done is to cast aside ethics and allow voluntary human testing, and all that stuff that is normally considered taboo

[Bla]

Sure I consider my ethics somewhat utilitarian,  but I don't agree with this person on everything

"If animal testing helps us make progress, I'm for it."
Sure

"If we can use embryonic stem cells to cure disease, I'm for it."
This does absolutely no harm to anyone who could possibly feel it so why on Earth would any rational person be against that for other reasons than superstition

"If we have to nuke an entire area to eliminate one massive threat, I'm for it."
I don't agree with this. This isn't going to advance society, but destroy it. And if you nuke an area filled with innocent people you'll have the entire world hate you. I'm pretty sure this would only make the problem worse.

"If we're looking to contain a disease, I'm for locking all of the infected in one area and letting them all die off; it's cruel, but if that's the only way to stop the spread, I'm for it."
If this were the only way to stop it, ok. But in reality I don't think we've ever known when that would be the 'only' way to stop it, and in cases like Ebola where people don't show symptoms in the early stages, you can't simply seal them off and act like the problem is solved. I think this statement is detached from how situations would look in the real world unless you want to seal off very large areas with lots of people, and that probably wouldn't work and would do more harm than good anyway.

Voluntary human testing sounds fine too. Another thing I think is stupid is that people should decide what happens to their organs after they're dead. If they can be used to save others or for research, I think the state should be able to decide what should happen to them instead of them getting burned up or having them rot in a grave.

[matty406]

I don't believe ethics should be sacrificed for a collective gain, because humans aren't a hivemind that act as one entity.

Stem cells are a-okay, I think the only reasons people are against them are because some are taken from embryos (sort of a legitimate reason to be against it for those who are) or that it's 'playing god' (a dull excuse)

As for large threats, I am vehemently against nukes, what's the point of destroying millions of non-combatants just to 'win'. Using nukes is like using a chainsaw to cut a cake. If all peaceful and negotiative avenues have been exhausted with no hope then perhaps conventional military action is needed to precisely excise a threat.
Maybe.

I don't think the state should have ownership rights over a corpse or it's contents unless explicitly requested by the former person beforehand. A deceased's relations are most likely going to feel uncomfortable with that happening to someone they've lost without any consent.

Exceptions would be in the case of an autopsy for a crime investigation in which they put them back together.

I'd maybe also accept organ harvesting from people destined for a state funeral who haven't had anyone come forward as a relative of other relation.

I don't like writing massive posts because it feels like wading through mud but w/e i have opiums on the internet too

[Bla]

I don't believe ethics should be sacrificed for a collective gain, because humans aren't a hivemind that act as one entity.

I don't see how ethics are sacrificed - if it helps more people, I'd say ethics are the opposite of sacrificed, as ethics are sacrificed exactly when principles make life worse for people.

Stem cells are a-okay, I think the only reasons people are against them are because some are taken from embryos (sort of a legitimate reason to be against it for those who are) or that it's 'playing god' (a dull excuse)

Since embryonic stem cells have no nerval system or brain that could make them capable of experiencing suffering or anything else at that stage I think it's not really different from if you had used a sperm cell (if that were possible) or any other random microscopic chunk of cells.

I don't think the state should have ownership rights over a corpse or it's contents unless explicitly requested by the former person beforehand. A deceased's relations are most likely going to feel uncomfortable with that happening to someone they've lost without any consent.

Maybe they'll feel uncomfortable, but I'd rather see relatives feel uncomfortable than I'd see someone die because there's a lack of healthy hearts/livers/whatever organs. I think their relatives would feel uncomfortable too if they died due to lack of organs? That's unnecessary deaths and unnecessarily increasing the number of people who feel uncomfortable.

I realize many would probably feel uncomfortable about it but I don't see any rational reason to do it. The person is dead, they won't feel their organs being used by someone else or experience any suffering because of it. It doesn't harm the person in any way, yet it helps others. The only negative consequences of it exist as things people make up in their imagination, while the positive ones can be life-saving.

[atomic7732]

"If animal testing helps us make progress, I'm for it."
Sure

"If we can use embryonic stem cells to cure disease, I'm for it."
This does absolutely no harm to anyone who could possibly feel it so why on Earth would any rational person be against that for other reasons than superstition

Agreed here.

On the topic of organ donations, hopefully soon we'll be able to grow personal organs for people on demand...

I don't think using a dead person's organs would be particularly... helpful? Considering something went wrong and their cells are worn out, but I don't really know too much about that. Not to mention having to take drugs that supress your immune system.

[FiahOwl]

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '138768'.

[atomic7732]

It's still decades old. And your DNA only goes downhill as you grow older

[Darvince]

eh the thing though is that when it's inserted into the new person after initial adaptation to the new organ your body slowly replaces it with your own cells as the ones from the old body die off and are replaced with new things from like spleen generation cells or heart generation cells elsewhere in the body

[Bla]

I don't think using a dead person's organs would be particularly... helpful? Considering something went wrong and their cells are worn out, but I don't really know too much about that. Not to mention having to take drugs that supress your immune system.

They can be very useful, like Fiah said, it depends on how the person died. In most cases I don't think they're useful, but if you can use organs from basically any person who dies without having to fiddle with all the consent, you end up with a lot more good organs. You could also have situations where older people have problems with organs, and you could replace them with organs from young people who died - it doesn't have to be the other way around.
But in any case an old organ is usually better than no organ at all.

In other news, an 37-ish year old woman in Sweden got a womb transplant from a 62-ish year old woman and successfully gave birth to a baby with it. It's 62 years old yes but it still works and it's better than nothing. That was from someone who was alive, but still.

[Xriqxa]

I guess it depends on the age of death. If the donor had died fresh, then of course anyone could use the organs. After a week or so, I don't think those organs are a very healthy transplant option.

To put this into perspective, take a look at this video (unless you are sensitive to gore)
http://youtu.be/xpsVcdcmtWI
Over a course of just a few days, the most important organ in the body is reduced to a mess. I'm pretty sure our other organs have a similar shelf life :p

[matty406]

Organs can be preserved to make them last longer.

[Xriqxa]

So can an orangutan.

[matty406]

orangutan on ice

[FiahOwl]

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '138825'.