• jsomae
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    And yet there are already people who donate their kidneys even without any incentive at all. Are you suggesting that with this incentive, fewer people will donate?

    • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Maybe, it certainly reduces the altruism motive. People would see kidney donations as a transactional thing.

      I said it before, I’m not against it in a more just world. In the USSR, there were medals given for various good deeds and these medals carried benefits such as better housing, allowance etc.

      I could see something like this for kidneys happening in a more equal world where people were awarded a medal for kidney donations (good for social standing, seperates it from purely being transactional) with the medal benefits like more vacation days, better housing or a bonus on your existing salary.

      Keep in mind in this world, everyone has a home for free and all the basic needs are met by the state already.

      • jsomae
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I suspect it will still feel altruistic; I think there’s not much difference between tax credits and a medal. I find it improbable that the altruistic motivation would fall off in some specific non-linear way such that the overall motivation would be lower. At least, you must admit that this bears trying. Even if there’s a 50% chance you’re right, there’s still a 50% chance this solution will significantly help.