Donorcycles: Motorcycle Helmet Laws and the Supply of Organ Donors
the PMC and harvesting organs of alienated people, name a better duo
Donorcycles: Motorcycle Helmet Laws and the Supply of Organ Donors
the PMC and harvesting organs of alienated people, name a better duo
in my ideal society there's no reason to enforce 'actual reasons', because people wouldn't want to opt out to begin with :shrug-outta-hecks:
That'd be even better, but if social responsibility can't be taught it can at least be enforced. They can sign their opt-out paperwork on the back of a kid who needs a transplant instead of a table.
That sounds amazing, let hogs see that there is a real person they're hurting.
deleted by creator
Eh, agree to disagree I guess. I don't think you can enforce - or teach - social responsibility, you can only hope to cultivate it in people. Naturally, there's enough there already, and if it weren't for capital beating it out of us, beginning at an early age, I'm sure there would be enough organs to go around overall - and people who wanted to keep theirs, for whatever reason, could chose to do so without some kid going empty.
I think this take kind of ignores communal and collective ways to enforce social responsibility, like redistribution systems and customs intended to keep people from thinking they're more important than the community. They're not very common in the individualism-poisoned West, but they're very common in indigenous communities that make collective life the first and foremost thing, at least until they're either genocided or westernized out of existence. We should try to understand them and learn from them when thinking of our "ideal" worlds, too.
Yea, that's exactly what I was getting at, actually; to collectively produce a culture where it's just the normal thing to do. At that point, there's no need to 'enforce' it, since it simply reproduces itself.
Gotcha, no problem. It is easy to fall into the trap of the "noble savage" though. These kinds of societies have these enforcement mechanisms because there is a tension between the individual and the collective, so by way of customs they try to nip it in the bud, with varying degrees of success. People are capable of much more generosity and community than what capitalism allows them to, but societies are still self-sustaining, and collectively desirable behaviors don't just spring out of the blue: they are maintained by the society promoting them and discouraging any behaviors that run counter to the collective.
I'm with you, I just wouldn't really call custom and social practice enforcement, I guess. The force in enforcement evokes, for me, notions of state violence - and while that's certainly not the only way to think about enforcement, especially when it comes to notion such as reinforcement... I just prefer different vocabulary, I figure
Oh I see! Sorry, I guess I didn't catch what you meant. I suppose that to me enforcement has more of an "active" connotation, so when you were talking about having desirable collective behaviors without enforcement, my mind just jumped at the notion of "everything will seamlessly work out and no one will have selfish ideas of try to fuck other people over if we all just agree that that is wrong", which is one that I find often, so I wanted to point out that even in collectivist societies, there's still a bit of an "active" reminder of the importance of the collective, in what I guess I see as societal "enforcement".
Anyway, thanks for clearing it out, and I hope I made my point clear too. Cheers!
all good, I think I got your point. If anything, if that state of 'seamless working out' can exist, it certainly won't be brought about seamlessly, without friction or struggle - and it will need continual, collective, internal reinforcement to persist.
anyways, good talk. Cheers!