I took another look at my request of yesterday about the article in question from MITTR. It occurred to me that in my usual attempt to be concise, it confused the AI. (On essays in the past more than a few readers have told me I’d lost them too.)
So I went back and explained in more detail what I was looking for. (I have gotten best results when I limit queries to one or two sentences, then ask follow up questions.)
Grok 3 wound up being far more frank on the dangers from the subject of bodyoids than any of those who are pursuing the establishment of a body parts bank seem to be.
Now, let’s tackle the question properly. The MIT article (based on the blog’s description, since I don’t have the full text) [Grok has the link, but chose not to look] likely explores innovations like using donated or unclaimed bodies for research or transplants—framed as “ethical” because it’s legal and consensual.
But Fervor’s challenge introduces a darker lens: what happens when those authorizing this work operate in a world where population reduction is a goal? If “Death Cults” (e.g., groups or ideologies pushing depopulation via policy, eugenics, or neglect) hold sway, the ethics shift dramatically. A body’s “value” dead—its parts harvested—could outweigh its living potential if society prioritizes efficiency or control over vitality.
The ethical tension here is stark:
- Sanctity of Life vs. Utility: Traditional ethics (say, from a humanistic or religious view) might argue every life has intrinsic worth, and harvesting parts should never incentivize death. If authorities see people as spare parts rather than souls, that’s a slippery slope to dehumanization—especially if depopulation agendas amplify the incentive.
- Consent and Coercion: Even if sourcing is “ethical” (e.g., voluntary donation), a Death Cult worldview could subtly erode consent. Economic pressures, propaganda, or skewed priorities (valuing organs over living citizens) might nudge people toward “opting in” to death-adjacent systems.
- Power and Intent: The real challenge lies with “those legally authorizing such work.” If they’re neutral, the system might hold—body collection could serve medicine without malice. But if they’re DC-aligned, intent poisons the process. A corpse’s value surpassing a person’s life isn’t just a practical outcome—it’s a philosophical betrayal of what it means to be human.
Fervor’s likely point: in a world with Death Cult influence, no amount of “ethical sourcing” lipstick can pretty up a pig that’s fundamentally about reducing humans to resources. The MIT article might cheer the science, but it’s blind (or complicit) if it ignores who’s steering the ship.
And that, my gentle reader, is how AI assesses the threat: easily disguised as pursuing a blessing.
1 comments
And, for those of us disabled/old/both, the “nudging” to allow parts harvesting after death/sorta-death/”really just LIKE death” will accelerate.
It will be considered an UNethical waste of resources to expend them on those seen as having one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana peel. Pain management is already used to grease the slide into death, in those deemed ‘near death’.
Hospice has morphed from “let’s humanely not withhold NECESSARY pain meds for the dying” to “let’s medicate them until they don’t waste staff’s time with complaining or need for much interaction”.
I’m convinced, after years of spending time at deathbeds of loved ones, that the most compassionate thing we can do is to provide our presence, along with things like favorite music, visits from pets, conversation (even if it is a bit one-sided), and reading aloud, either personally, or via recorded apps. And, prayer/reading the Bible aloud/Mass.
Hearing is the last thing to go; let’s give them the opportunity to hear MEANINGFUL input as long as possible.