h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This idea takes the rather formidable junk mail system and specifically targets only those people who are perfect matches for organ donation to people waiting around for those spare parts. (...At this point, it would save us all a lot of time if everyone stopped pretending that their personal and health
information was confidential...) Since it has long since been possible for networks to share information, simply allow the auto-bots to scour personal records until a long list of Likely Successful Donors (LSD) is found, exclusively for Mrs. Noordberg. Then mount a relentless junk mail campaign detailing Mrs. Noordberg's miserable iron lung existence to all of the likely recalcitrant donors. Throw in a couple of pictures of Mrs. Noordberg enjoying a Bolivar Coronas Gigantes on her tour of the uranium mines, with a tagline explaining how she can no longer enjoy these fine Cuban cigars. Sooner than later, one of the donors succumbs to the campaign and donates the organ. Later, local papers will no doubt highlight the human interest story, "LSD Saves Mrs. Noordberg!"
No, NOT This...
http://www.youtube....watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o
Over The Top Monty Python Skit on an Organ Donor. It isn't really a problem donating an organ while you're still alive; it only becomes a problem if donating said organ puts you in the Living-Impared Demographic. Many people donate kidneys, bone marrow, etc. while they are still alive, with little, if any, ill-effect. Organ Donor cards typically put off any harvest until you kick the bucket. If it works for all concerned, why not now instead? [Grogster, Aug 17 2010]
[link]
|
| |
We have a bottle of nice Chianti, and the fava beans are simmering. All we need now is a donor.... |
|
| |
[ ] Would increase the obstinacy of said recalcitrance. |
|
| |
"Oh, look, this nice old lady is going to die unless you submit to the inconvenience of an almost-painless medical procedure!" |
|
| |
"I'll send her some flowers." |
|
| |
"Seems appropriate. That's what they sent to me." |
|
| |
Living organ (lung, kidney) donation can (lung does, liver doesn't in theory, kidney carries some risks) impair the donor. Usually not critically, but people who donated are definitely under some restrictions. |
|
| |
Living tissue donation (bone marrow, blood) doesn't. |
|
| |
Posthumous donation obviously doesn't impair the donor. |
|
| |
Anyone who isn't signed up for the latter had better have a good reason, anyone who doesn't do the middle really should. The first is another story. |
|
| |
I find it difficult to justify anything which increases the number of humans on the planet while we continue to irresponsibly overpopulate. If the donor could specify acceptable recepients (e.g. not to treat congenital conditions) I would sign up.
(-) |
|
| |
//...we continue to irresponsibly overpopulate...// |
|
| |
So, just to clarify, [Twizz], we should overpopulate in a more responsible manner, should we? Hey, I'm all for that; perhaps overpopulating in alphabetical order so that we complete our overpopulation from A to Z throughout the entire year. |
|
| |
//...donor could specify acceptable recipients...// |
|
| |
The gist of this idea is that the multitudes of Mrs. Noordberg's out there would have junk mail sent out to pre-screened donors, all of whom were 1) Likely Successful Donors to their particular Mrs. Noordberg, and 2) recalcitrant (for whatever reason). So, by way of example, if you receive junk mail for your matching Mrs. Noordberg, you are certainly free to ask her to catalog her laundry list of genetic defects for your perusal. However, making your choice based on these traits is called "eugenics;" quite the popular notion around 1911 at the (German) Kaiser Wilhelm Society (which would later become the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in 1927 with funding assistance from the Rockefeller Foundation). It was chock full of philosophy from guys like Friedrich Nietzsche (into "human improvement") and Charles Darwin (who wrote about "natural selection"). |
|
| |
Mrs. Noordberg's junk mail would probably be wasted on the whole lot... |
|
| |
I'm not a fan of Eugenics, but neither do I favour the reverse, which is the artificial support of genes which would not normally be able to self-sustain. |
|
| |
Is my selectrion of a mate, based on their attractiveness to my subjective views also to be classified as Eugenics? |
|
| |
The fact that extremists quote the works of scientists such as Darwin should not be allowed to detract from the validity of those scientists' work. |
|
| |
There is middle ground between the extremes of Eugenics and the 'pro-lifers'. |
|
| |
//... Is my selection of a mate, based on their attractiveness to my subjective views also to be classified as Eugenics?...// |
|
| |
Beats me, frankly. I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the time the selection of a mate is based on breast size or how many socks their date has stuffed in his pants. That selection criteria has worked for thousands of years. It may come as a surprise to you that I have no problem with your selection criteria --- nor in fact, do I have a problem with eugenics, since it (eventually) led to the science of genetics and stem cell research. |
|
| |
//...The fact that extremists quote the works of scientists such as Darwin should not be allowed to detract from the validity of those scientists' work...// |
|
| |
Agreed. When I find an extremist, I'll remind him of that. |
|
| |
//...There is middle ground between the extremes of Eugenics and the 'pro-lifers'...// |
|
| |
I am whole heartedly in favor of what the eugenics eventually turned into. Where we differ becomes a bit more visible in our visceral reaction to Mrs. Noordberg's junk mail. I'll be happy to meet on said middle ground and hoist a pint with all y'all. |
|
| |