Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

We Should Default for Donation for the Future for Real (And Against "The Future" of the Facile Futurologists)

Upgraded from the Moot for yesterday's post on cryonical corpsickies an exchange with my friend Robin, who commented:
At first I laughed, then got very sad, at the fellow who wants to sign his child up for this. Does this guy have any idea how many usable organs are needed by actual, living people?
Hers is a point that deserves amplification. I, for one, advocate that policy in which we assume as the default that people are willing to donate their useful organs post-mortem and that they should have to take the trouble to officially indicate the reverse should they really feel that way. Polls of attitudes on the question suggest this actually should be the default, quite apart from the fact that this simple change would enormously increase the availability of organs urgently needed and undermine a number of ills -- not just the obvious illnesses therapeutically in question but social ills like criminal harvesting, black markets in organs, and so on as well. I believe this is the default in a number of EU countries and that the impact of the change has been positive.

A small and incidental addityional benefit, relevant in the context of this discussion, is that a change in this default would provide an occasion for narcissistic techno-transcendentalists indulging in pseudo-scientific wish-fulfillment fantasizing to contemplate their foolish and selfish assumptions in a critical way at least long enough to sign the form announcing their hostility for the real world and their real peers and their preference for non-existing post-human beings in a non-existing "The Future" built almost entirely out of their irrational fears and appetites.

4 comments:

jollyspaniard said...

Some of the Nordic countries already have opt out organ donation. Opting out is very easy but most people don't.

Marc_Geddes said...

Dale,

You may be interested to know what Michael Anissimov is up to these days.

Anissimov now calls himself a 'neo-reactionary' and on the 'More Right' blog he enthusiastically explores ideas such as restoration of a monarchy and benign dictatorship.

http://www.moreright.net/

"The Reaction is not primarily about opposing anything, but offering positive principles for stability and civilizational success — governments based on values, not just money; traditional principles of hierarchy and authority, which foster order; a long-term view based on inter-generational nobility rather than four-year election cycles, and so on. Leaders that lead, instead of simply following popular opinion. The whole idea is remarkably simple, and stood on its own for thousands of years without being contrasted with anything else except chaos and anarchy. Reaction stands alone, because it is based on what comes naturally."

Dale Carrico said...

When you suck so bad you can't even manage to be a big fish in a small pond -- find a smaller pond? It had to be awfully weird and stupid to be smaller than Robot Cultism already is, but, well, there he is.

jimf said...

> . . .and benign dictatorship. . .

http://www.mediumrare.uk.com/assets/dvdimage/Pic0%5B1%5D.jpg

> positive principles for stability and civilizational success. . .
> . . .traditional principles of hierarchy and authority, which foster order. . .

Sounds like he's been hanging out with Mark "Plus".

The two of them should re-read Greg Bear's _Slant_.