Hacker News Reader

> I am utterly unconcerned by what people choose to do to their own bodies and minds.

I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? "Voluntarily?" Also, I'm confident you think there should be limits on what children can choose to do with their bodies and minds, and I'm confident the line you draw would be as unsophisticated as an age.

After a lot of thought a few years back about freedom, I started considering what future generations might fight for, or have. What do we consider immoral today, that would be considered immoral tomorrow?

> I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs?

Freedom of destiny. If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. If a person requests assisted suicide when suffering from a terrible disease, then absolutely. Why should someone be forced to die in disgrace, purely to satisfy the dogmatic morals of those around them?

Less moral systems force a certain life on people, but they argue that it is moral. We are forcing a certain death on people, and are arguing it's moral. This line of thinking is in line with the current zeitgeist, and the truth of the matter is that no zeitgeist will ever be perfect - but we can improve things by challenging our core morals (just as we did with slavery, women, LGTBQ+).

> If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely.

The thing is, nobody of sound mind who has a choice (and I mean a real choice, not "give us your organs or your family starves") would choose to do this.

Nobody wants to sell their organs. People that want to purchase organs would love your suggestion however, as it allows them to justify exploitation of the desperate under the guise of "it was their decision".

Freedom of destiny indeed.

> Nobody wants to sell their organs. People that want to purchase organs would love your suggestion however, as it allows them to justify exploitation of the desperate under the guise of "it was their decision".

The problem is that almost any labor is unethical under certain systems. We just notice it more when it's in the extremes, like sex-work or selling an organ.

If we didn't have a situation where people could be taken such advantage of, this wouldn't be a problem. The cost of buying an organ might be very high, because no one would be forced into it.

But yes, if suddenly selling organs were legal in the US, that would be a very unfortunate thing because it would immediately be abused.

Freedom must include the freedom to make mistakes, as well as the freedom to make choises you don't understand.

Otherwise some entity will "keep you safe from yourself".

Genuinely asking. Do you then think we should drop age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales?

I don't know. Societies globally agree that human babies are born prematurely and take some 16..18+ years to mature enough to take care of themselves. As an anecdote I've had both tobacco and alcohol before the legal age. Never really liked either.

My context was adults. Of course babies mustn't have the right to operate heavy machinery unsupervised, among many other things. But once society declares a person fully grown, they should have all the rights.

I'm a bit of an individualist. I understand why society, like an ant hive, would like to control some/many aspects of its constituents. But I also think that freedom isn't a mere cost, but is actually a portal to a better world overall.

Children aren't biologically capable of making sound decisions about their destiny[1]. If anything, the age could be raised.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

I'm not sure how many children you've known. There is a huge disparity in how wise they are just as is the case with adults. I'm not sure I see the philosophical consistency of telling a sharp youth who wants to smoke that they can't while letting an unsavy adult get talked into giving up their left lung.

There are multiple documented instances of life insurance fraud for exactly this purpose.

> > I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs?

> Freedom of destiny. If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely.

How is that world better than this one ?

With all the resources we have in the world, why don't we strive to allow for people to have better options than organ selling ?

That's a false dichotomy. Both of those worlds could exist simultaneously. I gave examples, thought experiments.

If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it?

This is probably a reasonable medium term comparison to selling organs (where using someone else's flesh will become an aesthetic choice more than a necessity or the medically superior option).

> If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it?

What's the argument against allowing this? That it's distasteful?

Edit: pun not intended, but noticed immediately and preserved.

It's directly harmful to society to make it rewarding for people to mutilate themselves.

Advertising, alcohol, tobacco, meat production, online gambling, excessive daily gaming are all net harmful and yet here we are.

Just because something is (considered) harmful to society doesn’t mean that it is right of the government to use monopoly of violence to prevent individuals from it. Some things, of course, but it is not sufficient.

Lest you’re looking at a moralizing authoritarian government as a good thing.

An economic argument might be that a person buying an arm must be able to make better use of it than a person selling an arm (e.g. the buyer can pay the seller enough to incentivize it), so therefore it is more productive to society to allow the transaction.

It doesn't follow that when two individuals are incentivized to transact with one another, that that transaction has a net positive impact on wider society; there may be negative externalities. Additionally, people are not always completely rational and perfectly informed agents, which means that not all voluntary transactions do render positive value to them. Selling your arm is vanishingly unlikely to be an efficient use of resources, particularly as arms are not fungible (you cannot change your mind later and reacquire an arm). An arm is just much more valuable when attached to a person, and if the economic incentives point the other way, we should probably look for how such a perverse situation came about, rather than fire up our circular saws.

Yeah, this is the argument for bitcoin, that if the transaction occurs then it must make sense for society.

I'll play devils' advocate here. Why is this harmful?

Say you're a middle class gentleman, rich but humane cannibals offer you 5 million dollars if they can have a surgeon remove your arm, so they can eat it.

Losing and arm will be tough, without that $5 mill it'd be very tough, especially to keep work. Since you're rich you're not going on disability or anything, so really it's self-sustained.

The only person out anything is the person who lost the arm. How is this harmful to society?

I'm not certain it is, I'm not saying it's right either... I mean obvious it's not normal, but is it really "harmful"?

This extremely unlikely situation hinges on profound wealth inequality. Only someone staggeringly, fantastically, mind-bogglingly rich (and also completely nuts) would blow 5 million on eating a human arm. And only someone who is really struggling in life would contemplate such a huge sacrifice for mere money. Since the actual variation in human ability, and therefore economic potential, follows a tame bell curve as opposed to the radically skewed distribution of wealth that this scenario requires (and that we actually see), this represents a market inefficiency. If we permit this transaction to take place, the economic potential of the formerly-armed takes a huge hit, while Cannibal Jeff Bezos does not enjoy a corresponding gain. Thus not only is the transaction negative-sum, but the inequality (and hence the inefficiency) is exacerbated.

Because it's fucking weird? Sorry but we live in a civil society that shouldn't encourage this kind of stuff. At what point do these arguments become so reductive as to have little to no substance?

Well, I certainly wouldn't do it, nor would I endorse it. But I don't think the government should imprison people for doing things that random people on the internet consider weird.

This is exactly what I mean.

I (probably) wouldn't go for assisted suicide, but I have no right to demand someone else suffer because of my own insecurities about death.

I (probably) wouldn't even volunteer my spare kidney, but I have no right to say that a 70y parent can't give their heart to their dying 30y.

Freedom of destiny wouldn't be the only freedom that allows societal problems, but freedom is not the cause: inequality and power are.

People selling their organs isn't them doing what they want with their own bodies and minds. It's them engaging in a mutli party business transaction where one person literally buys part of another person.

Maybe we should make that sort of business transaction illegal, maybe we shouldn't, but it has no bearing on whether or not people should be allowed to do what they want with their own minds and bodies.

People should be allowed to remove their own organs, it's only the selling (the business transaction) that you might (or might not) want to outlaw.

And where do we draw the line? If I cut my hair can I sell it? I literally mutilated myself. Of course, hair is not a vital organ. What about a nose, then? Why not a kidney? (we've got a spare)

Your hair is constantly falling out and being replaced. Your nose and kidneys aren't. That seems like a wholly obvious line to draw.

How is age not a sophisticated enough of a line (up to medical conditions and scams)? If someone has the right to vote and the right to bodily autonomy or basically any of the rights in the Bill of Rights, then that person should be able to do whatever they want (biohacking on themselves or even suicide included). Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it.

Compare this to mass scams: If many people are tricked (by a person or by a mass histeria) to do something, then it makes perfect sense to have a regulatory agency step in (e.g. FTC, FDA, SEC, etc). And compare that to people with a medical disability: if someone is permanently or temporarily mentally impaired, then some of these rights are curtailed.

>Their decisions might be stupid, but as long as they are affecting only themselves, then I have no problem with it.

I suspect people generally agree with this, but will extend the "affecting only themselves" a degree out. Did a Father who orphans a child due to drug use only affect themselves? Did the narco terrorists who were funded by his purchase only affect himself?

I think this is a great jab at my argument and its main weakness. But I stand by it, because even in your example we have seen that countries that go for decriminalization and offer elective treatment do better. Compare Portugal's successes with decreasing hard drug use with US's failed war on drugs.

Do not criminalize the things that make your society worse at scale, rather ensure the positive incentives draw your population in a better direction. I.e. carrot, not stick.

What you've missed with this analogy is that the supply side is always worth criminalising, or at least regulating

Edit: I'll walk this back to 'is always worth regulating'

No, that is the exact opposite of what I said. Instead of wasting resource on criminalizing the supply size, make the demand plummet by providing more enticing options. If there is demand for the drugs, you have already failed and criminalizing the supply is a non-functional bandaid.

On the other hand, sure, regulating and ensuring tax revenue comes from the vice is not a bad idea (and it works ok for gambling, alcohol, and now pot too).

This seems like a recipe for an even bigger black market, and various other issues that will come when an organization is running illegally, because of unblocked demand.

Obviously, even in cases where it is illegal to both buy and sell we still have black markets, but making it ok to buy but not sell seems like a recipe for a giant black market.

True, but that's an argument for regulation

Every choice in life ripples through eternity.

Taking a job, quitting to start a company, walking back on a contractual relationship, marrying a partner. While it's true that the direction of impact has outsized and measurable impact on children and dependents, there are other interactions we can't even begin to fathom.

Barry Marshall was criticized in the 80's for his H. pylori hypothesis. Then he drank some to prove his point, and now we know the cause of peptic ulcers and several stomach cancers.

mRRNA self-experimentation is undoubtably risky and I wouldn't do it myself, but it may yield dividends even if it does induce disease state or kill some of those that attempt it.

I don't think we should police it. Not when you can legally buy a car and drive it off a bridge. There are far worse things a person can do.

> I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? "Voluntarily?"

If someone meets the criteria to donate organs, for free, why shouldn't they also be able to charge for it?

I think the general argument is that if someone is financially desperate, then it's not really voluntary. It's like asking why folks working under terrible conditions don't just quit.

First, because they increase their chance of being a burden on society (giving a kidney isn't without significant risks). Same could be said of smoking or overeating, but "not" giving an organ is much easier than stopping those things.

Second, because we know exactly how this would end up. Poor people would become de facto organ factories. Many would get coerced into it. Similar to prostitution. A lot of the same arguments (both for and against) would apply.

Maybe it should be legal, but there's certainly a lot of nuance to consider.

> First, because they increase their chance of being a burden on society (giving a kidney isn't without significant risks)

Sure its a serious operation but these points apply to donating a kidney as well.

> Poor people would become de facto organ factories.

If you don't think someone who is poor has the where with-all to sell their kidney, why should they be allowed to give it away for free?

what if one group of peoples messing with their own body creates the next new aids or coronavirus or whatever...

whats the "GreyGoo" concept in biohacking.

In times like these it is important to recall the literal definition of "conservative" and recognize how such an approach hinders society's progress.

It's no axiom that applications of conservatism hinder progress. For instance, being conservative towards something that presents an existential threat to humanity could be enabling of progress. I say this as someone who's predominantly 'liberal'

There are times when changing things up is an improvement as well as times when it's not.

Yeah, the oldest school of conservatives, the ones who saw industrialists as upstarts and who said, "don't chop down primeval forests to build factories do seem a little less absurd given where the biospbere is headed. Even if they mostly felt that way because industry threatened their power structure.

I could imagine them saying something similar about self hosting compilers.

> Similar arguments are being made regarding the public's access to general-purpose computing, 3D fabrication equipment, AI agents, and indeed: drugs (both psychoactive and medical). Putting this increasing number of "genies back in the bottle" is infeasible and I would argue harmful.

I’d argue that the only way to put that many genies back into their bottles is an authoritarian government, which is never worth it no matter what promises a would be tyrant makes.

"Never" is a big word. Let's extend this to its logical conclusion - imagine a world where every person had a button that would glass the planet. How long would humans last? Seconds? An authoritarian government would be acceptable in comparison to the immediate extinction that would follow.

We've already accepted as a society that some technologies are too big and dangerous for private individuals to have access to, for the sheer pragmatic reason that there are people crazy enough to do literally anything. Technology that allows a single human to kill every other human on Earth is a really good candidate for restriction. Biohacking is such technology. It's real-life nanobots.

I would push back on this framing. Do you consider the FDA or the FCC to be authoritarian? There's a lot of genies they put back in bottles - and while there are some places where people might feel they've infringed on general freedom (the regulation of the content on the airwaves, for example) the fact that our home electronics don't mess with our wifi is something we all take for granted.

Another good example is how you can't photocopy money. Did that stop counterfeiting... no. but it sure did tamp down a lot of casual counterfeiting - and i don't think it actually did harm people's liberty very much.

For the record, I do consider the war on drugs (mentioned by OP) authoritarian. How else can you describe a system of laws that has locked up more people than anyone else?

Furthermore, there is a clear difference between “you can’t do this to other people” and “you can’t do X or Y to your own body”, the latter of which is at play here. Photocopying money, selling dangerous medicine, and spamming the radio waves with noise actually affects other people. Personal experimentation with mRNA does not.

Regulating mass market mRNA products before they can be sold? Sure. Banning individual experimentation? Hell no.

For an interesting take on this, find and read the Isaac Asimov short story "The Dead Past".

I am curious that you read this piece as arguing for any particular position. I did not write it with a particular argument in mind. My personal bias is the same as yours