Okay, I do agree with what you’re saying, at least as far as “we live in a broken society” and capitalism is bad. But why should the response to any idea short of tearing down the system be negative? If there’s a way to help improve things… shouldn’t we go for it? It sucks that society sucks but that’s not an excuse to ignore potentially helpful ideas.
If there’s a way to help improve things… shouldn’t we go for it? It sucks that society sucks but that’s not an excuse to ignore potentially helpful ideas.
I mean, sure, you can try and get people over the hurdle of convincing them that kidney selling is actually good sometimes, if you want. But people shouldn’t just be like, accepting this. Telling people to accept or normalize this is wrong. The fundamental truth is that the very idea of this being a possibly reasonable thing should fill people with rage. We don’t want people accepting this, ultimately, because we want them to revolt.
Settling for survival by self-mutilation, even if it’s better than neither revolt or self-mutilation, is still horrific. Normalizing it (which is what the article is trying to do) is ghoulish
People already self-mutilate (living kidney donors), and they are seen as heroic. Unfortunately, they take a financial hit as a result of their decision. What an injustice. Shouldn’t we try to offset that? What makes this “wrong”?
Okay, I do agree with what you’re saying, at least as far as “we live in a broken society” and capitalism is bad. But why should the response to any idea short of tearing down the system be negative? If there’s a way to help improve things… shouldn’t we go for it? It sucks that society sucks but that’s not an excuse to ignore potentially helpful ideas.
I mean, sure, you can try and get people over the hurdle of convincing them that kidney selling is actually good sometimes, if you want. But people shouldn’t just be like, accepting this. Telling people to accept or normalize this is wrong. The fundamental truth is that the very idea of this being a possibly reasonable thing should fill people with rage. We don’t want people accepting this, ultimately, because we want them to revolt.
Settling for survival by self-mutilation, even if it’s better than neither revolt or self-mutilation, is still horrific. Normalizing it (which is what the article is trying to do) is ghoulish
People already self-mutilate (living kidney donors), and they are seen as heroic. Unfortunately, they take a financial hit as a result of their decision. What an injustice. Shouldn’t we try to offset that? What makes this “wrong”?
Because there’s a difference between doing something for financial incentive for food, and doing it for altruistic reasons or even cultural reasons.
The idea is for kidney donation to be financially neutral. So you wouldn’t do this for financial gain. Currently, it’s financially net negative.
Putting nitpicks with the specifics of their system aside, how is it wrong to take kidney donation from a financial negative to financially neutral?
I don’t think 50k is financially neutral
It surprises me as well that kidney donations cost the donor ~50k, but I guess that’s why I’m not an expert.