Also, people, you need to be specific on whom you choose to give an artificial heart to, don't just say 1 male and 2 females or some other such nonsense, state the specific patient.
Upvote
0
-_- just as a comment, only 1 of the women would even be young enough and in good enough health for another pregnancy to be possible for them with an artificial heart, and such strain on the body while having an artificial heart would likely kill them or the unborn child, or both. You also have to name which women/men you would save specifically.My philosophy.
Concerning life, I attribute 2/3 to the female, 1/3 to the male. It isn't equal in my opinion.
As far as which persons: the ones I chose, I feel the world needs more of these type of people - apocalypse or not.
-_- just as a comment, only 1 of the women would even be young enough and in good enough health for another pregnancy to be possible for them with an artificial heart, and such strain on the body while having an artificial heart would likely kill them or the unborn child, or both. You also have to name which women/men you would save specifically.
Yeah, my mistake. Some other posters did not.I did name the persons, specifically.
-_- in an "end of the world as we know it" situation, diabetics would be pretty much doomed, because insulin has a relatively short shelf life. Also, most parents don't kill their kids. We are biologically predisposed not to kill our offspring. Also, her knowledge base is... being a housewife. I didn't even say if she was good or bad at being a housewife, just that she is one. The only candidate that you can reasonably guarantee probably has less of a knowledge base than her is the 16 year old.And, forget about procreation: I still stand by my choices. The older mom with diabetes has the experience, knowledge base and patience to deal with five kids without killing them; he skills are valuable for both civilization and TEOTWAWKI.
She's also one of the most likely candidates to die soon after getting the artificial heart, thanks to her compromised immune system.The prostitute turned nurse also has valuable life experience. She changed her life and made a career out of something that saves lives instead of destroying them. That is invaluable in a civilization, and in TEOTWAWKI.
Possibly a valuable asset to humanity. I find it funny that you seem to have constructed personalities for all these candidates, and that they are generally positive. There's not a ton you can actually tell about the personalities of the candidates from the information I gave. Perhaps the 16 year old is a kleptomaniac, or a sociopath that stole because he felt like he was entitled to having possessions. He could be, socially, human feces. Heck, the housewife hasn't killed her kids, but she might physically abuse them. It is, perhaps, a flaw in how candidates are chosen, that one can't know these people personally.The young 16 year old "scholastic troublemaker" is young, and unchallenged by LIFE. That is the type of person I would run to save: someone with potential that can be turned into activity with the correct challenges. Whether in civilizatikn, or in TEOTWAWKI, this human is a valuable asset.
The sad part is, most of the "substance" you have for these candidates... you made up. And you care so much for these artificial personalities that you gave them, that empathy of what you think these people are like. Sure, that could be how they are... or not. Since you don't know them personally, and in real life, couldn't know them personally and be allowed to contribute to this judgement, that substance consists of information you actually don't know.It has to do with the substance of the human, rather than commoditizing their gifts, or what they have to offer the world. That is my philosophy.
Yeah, my mistake. Some other posters did not.
-_- in an "end of the world as we know it" situation, diabetics would be pretty much doomed, because insulin has a relatively short shelf life.
most parents don't kill their kids. We are biologically predisposed not to kill our offspring.
Also, her knowledge base is... being a housewife. I didn't even say if she was good or bad at being a housewife, just that she is one. The only candidate that you can reasonably guarantee probably has less of a knowledge base than her is the 16 year old.
She's also one of the most likely candidates to die soon after getting the artificial heart, thanks to her compromised immune system.
Possibly a valuable asset to humanity. I find it funny that you seem to have constructed personalities for all these candidates, and that they are generally positive. There's not a ton you can actually tell about the personalities of the candidates from the information I gave. Perhaps the 16 year old is a kleptomaniac, or a sociopath that stole because he felt like he was entitled to having possessions. He could be, socially, human feces. Heck, the housewife hasn't killed her kids, but she might physically abuse them. It is, perhaps, a flaw in how candidates are chosen, that one can't know these people personally.
The sad part is, most of the "substance" you have for these candidates... you made up. And you care so much for these artificial personalities that you gave them, that empathy of what you think these people are like.
Sure, that could be how they are... or not.
Since you don't know them personally, and in real life, couldn't know them personally and be allowed to contribute to this judgement, that substance consists of information you actually don't know.
And, I don't know if you remember, but at least in the States there was a time when "Housewife" was a salaried occupation. This is because a housewife has several skills that "come with the territory" - skills that companies appreciate and spend money to train potential employees to have. Housewives are incredibly valuable, especially with kids. Society puts a price on that identity, however.
As an individual participating in this thought experiment, I am using my own experience, knowledge and intelligence to determine that a housewife in my opinion is extremely valuable, and worth saving.
Humans are more than what they can provide for others - humans are not commodities despite how we treat ourselves.
Organs don't last long enough outside of bodies for that. Not to mention having to make tissue matches to potential recipients. Honestly, I think technology will advance artificial organs or the ability to grow new organs before that movie's future could ever happen.I'm going to mention a slightly off topic thought.. I just watched the 2010 Repo Men movie (gory as all get out :-/) if you've seen it then you understand the profit motivation regarding this topic placed in a dystopian future. Think society could ever get that bad?
Heath MUST be considered on who gets an artificial heart, and who doesn't, because how long an individual could enjoy the benefits of an artificial heart, and if they will even survive the surgery, are important. There are only so many artificial hearts made every year, and far more people in line to receive them.
Furthermore, so many people apply for artificial hearts that dozens could send in their applications at the same time, and what ones happened to be processed first are essentially random. Generally, how long a person has been on the waiting list is taken into consideration, but it is not the deciding factor of who gets a new organ, real or artificial.
-_- I gave my health based reasons for why she wouldn't get it: diabetics have poor circulation. People with artificial hearts also can have circulation problems. It doesn't help that her diabetes likely contributed to her heart failure and need for a replacement in the first place, and thus even if she got a real heart, her diabetes could entirely wreak it. Why don't people realize the severity of this disease?That depends on how the end of the world happens, and the type of diabetes. It also depends on the maintainance of health. Diabetes isn't enough of a reason for me to discount someone from getting a heart - at all.
-_- the point is that not killing your kids is by far the norm, and not worthy of praise.There was a time when no one would suspect a mother could kill their child. Now, the parents are one of the first persons who police pook at when a child is harmed, or killed. Biology is not a frozen-in set of behavior - even in genetics. Parents kill their children despite their alleged biological resistance.
Oh, so you are like the 16 year old candidate all grown up. Good for you, making the housewife look even less knowledgeable than I did .When I was 16, I was a physics major in univerisity. I was also a disruptive child, and went to college early because I was absolutely bored with school - even AP classes. At 21, I delivered a graduate seminar on neutrino flavor oscillations and energy considerations.
You know so little about the candidates that you can make no claims on their character or personage. And the point of making these judgments is that you CAN'T know these people personally and have a say in whether or not they get an artificial heart. Talk about an impersonal process, but the point of it is to try to remove emotional bias as much as possible.Age means nothing; character and personage matter much more. It can't be said with certainty whose knowledge base is greater - even when it seems obvious. Your model leaves a lot open, which means we as the choosers have to consider many unknown factors. I know post-docs who wouldn't be able to survive "Naked and Afraid" despite their vast knowledge.
-_- housewives themselves don't make money doing what they do, it is just that how much their work would be worth is quantifiable. It's not a taxable income or anything like that, and never has been. Sure, a housewife has to have certain skills, but none exclusive to a housewife. I could easily argue that a working, single parent has far more to handle than any parent that maintains the house alone, because they have to do that and maintain a job.And, I don't know if you remember, but at least in the States there was a time when "Housewife" was a salaried occupation. This is because a housewife has several skills that "come with the territory" - skills that companies appreciate and spend money to train potential employees to have. Housewives are incredibly valuable, especially with kids. Society puts a price on that identity, however.
That's fine, you do that, and I will freely criticize your reasoning if I so choose. My issue is not in her value to society, but in the fact that as a person with diabetes, she has a health condition that puts her greatly at a disadvantage in enjoying the benefits of the artificial heart. She'd probably go blind and start losing toes within a year; not exactly great handicaps for a housewife.As an individual participating in this thought experiment, I am using my own experience, knowledge and intelligence to determine that a housewife in my opinion is extremely valuable, and worth saving.
-_- hardly. If you have two doctors, one that has a 95% success rate at treating patients, and another with an 85% success rate at treating patients, you mean to tell me your doctor choice would be random? Because I would choose the 95% success rate over the 85% success rate every time. If anyone you choose to give an artificial heart to dies soon after getting it, it can't just be plopped into someone else's chest as if it is brand new. Basically, it'd be wasting a heart. In real life, the nurse with leukemia wouldn't even qualify for an artificial heart because of how likely she'd die within a month. Not to mention that's she's not going to be contributing much to society for that month, recovering from heart surgery. The issue is not only her initial lack of immune response, but artificial hearts are given to people that are, hopefully, going to get real ones in the future. And when you get a real heart, you have to take immunosuppressant drugs, otherwise your own immune system will kill off the artificial heart. Since her immune system is already compromised, it'd be like putting an organ into someone with full blown AIDS in the 1980s.Probability is ridiculous when dealing with something as certain as life.
This wasn't an end of the world situation, stop making arguments as if it were. Health matters, in fact, it is one of the biggest contributors to deciding who gets any organ. It's part of why people above a certain age aren't even put on donor recipient lists: a 75 year old is so likely not to recover from the surgery that to put an organ into someone that old when someone significantly younger and more likely to live is often considered downright criminal. You want to feel philosophically and morally superior so badly by not considering health, by trying to avoid a necessary bias, that you have hurt your own ability to make a logical judgement.The likelihood of complications befalling her after the transplant are marginally irrelevant. I am choosing based on a philosophy which I have described; the likelihood that we go to global nuclear war, or that the doctor dies after transplant for example, is quantifiable also.
I know statistics are not certainties, and I take no issue with you deciding to give that patient a heart on the chance that they will be of huge benefit to society. I never even said he was more likely to fail in life, just that any personality or potential future you try to apply to this person is merely but one possibility.But, statistics are not certainties. Even overwhelming statistics are no certainty. And, this is also a large part of the choosing process. I could easily dismiss the 16 year old as statistically prone to fail in life - while reality may dictate that he become the next extolled mathematician of the generation. So, the probability issue is a distraction for choosing, based on a conglomerate of societal extrapolation and normalization.
So you would give a serial killer a heart, so long as they had a skill set that could make them potentially beneficial to society? The entire point of not knowing these people is that you don't know, they could be good people, or they could be terrible people. My issue is that you are, in many ways, basing your determinations on unknowns, and hoping for the best.It would be redundant, and superfluous to focus on the bad in these people because they are humans.
Indeed, so you can't make personality judgements.Humans have a problem understanding status, money or recognition do not negate the grotesque qualities of humanity attributed to said persons. For example, the surgeon may be the "logical" choice since he is likely to be learned, and has a professional career. Well this person could be a murderer, and even murders under the guise of surgery.
Who knows?
You can't actually weigh their potential evil or good. In fact, the only person on the list you could make any moral comment on is the PAST of the 16 year old candidate. Yeah, he was in juvie once for theft, a pretty minor crime. You have no information that can even give you a hint on the moral standing of anyone else.We dont, which is why the "potential evil" of these people (another probability) is weighted appropriately in favor of choosing the right candidate (in my opinion.)
-_- well, you could look at it that way, but it won't function consistently as such. Especially since some people, like myself, will have more medical knowledge than the average person, and thus can make a more informed judgement.With this statement, you are dangerously missing an important point in the exercise of empathy itself - as this is what this exercise is: an exercise in empathy, sympathy, and judgment. I worked with what was given, and based my decision on my own experiences with these types of model persons.
-_- interspecies murder is common, especially in non-social species like most reptiles and insects, and many mammals. My bearded dragons would eat their own babies any day of the week if given the opportunity.Pretending that doesn't happen is just lying to yourself. The only reason we find murder so abhorrent is that we are both genetically predisposed and raised to view it as such. But, given the right circumstances, just about anyone could kill another person. In this moral experiment, you don't get the benefit of seeing these people as more than what they have done for society, and what they could do for society. This is the impersonal, general method in which who gets an organ and who dies is decided in real life. You have failed to understand that.That empathic and sympathetic factor missing - the ability to see humans for more than what they can provide - is one of the reasons why we are degenerate. Creation that kill tor fun are at best degenerste. Creation that can blithely accept interspecies murder as if it is commonplace is degenerate.
Except you clearly did not, and took issue when I brought up the probability of future health problems and death for two of the candidates you picked.I used very little philosophical, experiential and intellectual latitude (extrapolation of information given).
Which is why I appropriately weighted issues of probability.
Right, using only what I gave you, and nothing more.Your entire experiment is based on getting us to choose based on extremely limited substance. And, we HAVE TO CHOOSE, right?
You were given about as much information as a person that would actually make these decisions would get. Sure, the medical history would be more detailed, but I didn't feel like typing that much. I also didn't feel like mentioning race, which would have usually been given in this type of situation.These questions of libility, probability, and spectral romanticism of humanity in the decision to choose which life will continue to receive life should be carefully considered. If you don't give us more information, we will make an educated deduction of the data given, and come to a conclusion with respect to the cache of experience we have had ourselves.
I wanted to see how real people would deal with a real situation. If I give you much more information, it will cease to match the real life situation this is imitating. If you need an organ, you likely will be judged similarly.If you want a more precise, accurate and tuned answer, you will have to provide more information. If you want to know what we would do with the information you gave, you have to assume each person making this decision will assume information about the subjects in order to determine their result.
This is part of why I did not include race or religion.This is done correctly, and incorrectly in life all of the time (e.g. stereotypes, profiling, prejudice, etc.)
I take issue with the fact that you consider how long a person will likely live after getting the organ as unimportant. That you care more about what they could, in their personal jobs, contribute to society without considering how much getting an artificial heart would impact those jobs. The nurse probably wouldn't even survive, and would never get a real heart, so her max is about 7 years, which is the longest anyone has lived with an artificial heart. The MAX, given that she'd probably die soon after surgery. The diabetic mom would soon lose sight and toes, and likely have a stroke. They have diseases that would cut into their QUALITY and QUANTITY of life so much that you almost might as well be putting the hearts into corpses. But hey, I'm just that utilitarian part of society, what do I know, it shouldn't matter that I would be denying people that could have long, high quality lives in favor of people that most certainly wouldn't, because statistics are entirely useless, and that's why we pay so much attention to them. I hope you can detect the sarcasm in the last part.My choices were not based on what the world believes is a valuable human. Can you see how asinine that is - to base the continuance of life on a collection of hackneyed acfepted social rules, behaviors and meaning? But alas, you asked the question - which may be the reason you are having trouble reconciling the philosophical neighborhood from which I come.
I cared enough to note that people that would have high quality, and longer lives after receiving the hearts should get them if possible. But to be blunt, if this statement of yours were true, you wouldn't have judged these people so heavily on what you thought they could be useful for in an "end of the world as we know it" situation, or what they could do for society outside of such circumstances. You treated them as commodities more than I did, judging them on their occupations while I judged them on quality and quantity of life after surgery. You are criticizing your own actions.Humans are more than what they can provide for others - humans are not commodities despite how we treat ourselves.
Well...sad fact of life -especially when it comes to organ transplants- shortages are an issue. Be that budget for experimental procedures, or direct shortage of replacements. If there are 3, there are three.There are 6 people in line to receive experimental artificial hearts. However, thanks to budgeting concerns, there are only 3 artificial hearts to give to these people. If a person does not get an artificial heart, they are likely to die within a year. Whom among these would you give an artificial heart? Why them and not the others?
He would, to me, be a definite possible. Healthy, reasonable age. Would possibly do well with the part.Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.
Possible, but lower on the list due to her diabetes (poor circulation, additional taxing on immune system, possible lifestyle issues as well [depending on type and onset]).Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.
Definitely highest I see for the list of possibles. Young, otherwise healthy. Seems like a prime candidate so far as what we know.Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.
Sadly, I would say she is a "no", due to her leukemia - weak immune system is a hazard, and since this is only even experimental, adding such variables knowingly would seem to be rather rash.Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).
I would not say NO definitively. But low on the list, due to the age and health issues known.Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.
If the paralysis and prior injury is not a mitigating factor in the replacement -and it may well not be- I would say possibly a yes.Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.
I would argue we aren't that many steps from it - we pay people to donate blood, plasma, etc. We DO have a black market for organs already. Scary, but maybe for for thought on the current situation?I'm going to mention a slightly off topic thought.. I just watched the 2010 Repo Men movie (gory as all get out :-/) if you've seen it then you understand the profit motivation regarding this topic placed in a dystopian future. Think society could ever get that bad?
-_- the vast bulk of humanity recognizes that everyone, including themselves, will eventually die. Ages in reference to understanding of death:First it said they were experimental hearts to begin with so???
But assuming the experiment would work I would pick the youngest and most likely to survive.
I'm not sure if people realize this but this mortal life is extraordinarily short, we are going to die.
There are 6 people in line to receive experimental artificial hearts. However, thanks to budgeting concerns, there are only 3 artificial hearts to give to these people. If a person does not get an artificial heart, they are likely to die within a year. Whom among these would you give an artificial heart? Why them and not the others?
Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.
Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.
Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.
Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).
Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.
Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.
The question was about a life threatening situation for six people, and we could only choose three to save.
I am saying on those circumstances alone (life,) my philosophy aligns with 2/3 for female, 1/3 for male.
It was a piece of luck that the descriptions of the people made it easy for me to pick that ratio. I was basing my decision on the entirety of life; it can include, but isn't limited to procreation.
Why would you weigh a female life as more important? Is that not sexist? Imagine if it was the other way round.