As the article explains, that’s not an argument for abolition, but regulation instead. You’re also not thinking through how this could or would work. You’re just kind of assuming the current black market would now be legal. But that doesn’t make sense.
You should really read the article.
Wikipedia: The Jigsaw Man
In the future, criminals convicted of capital offenses are forced to donate all of their organs to medicine, so that their body parts can be used to save lives and thus repay society for their crimes. However, high demand for organs has inspired lawmakers to lower the bar for execution further and further over time.
None of that has anything to do with allowing people to sell kidneys in a legal regulated market.
I’m thinking you didn’t actually read the article.
Why is this here?
It’s a good article. It reasonably exposes the poor reasoning prohibiting the sale of kidneys. It also makes a strong case for allowing it.
The headline itself isn’t very oniony at all.
I don’t get it.
Fixd
Somehow, some right wing MAGA types, are Star Trek fans.
I don’t understand how, but it’s true.
And they’re all batshit.
Say who?
If actions depend on our thoughts
They don’t
Where did I “begin” … where will I “end”
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s Tom with the weather.” - Bill Hicks
I you word
Your actions are real.
Your thoughts are all in your head.
The page seems pretty secure to me
Sewing machines don’t make stiches the way people do. People tried for decades and failed to build machines that sewed like humans. They work by making their stiches in ways humans never would, or could realy. They had to invent a whole new way get the job done, not remotely the way a person would do it.
AI will very likely be the same. Expecting machine minds to do things the same way a human mind would, to mimic human thought, strikes me as some kind of human centric bias.
Complexity isn’t relevant to my analogy.
The lessons learned from the failures and eventual success of machine sewing are.
Unless you’re being sarcastic.
Sewing really is surprisingly complex.
That’s like saying there’s no way a machine can replicate hand sewing.
This feels like we’re making fun of someone with clear social disabilities.
I don’t like it.
*States Rights*
Isn’t that the line?