So when does it air?

Shit that's really good. You should write the production team about that.

That actually sound like a real episode!

[deleted]

"you're a loser anyway - why not let us kill you for the greater good? Let's go through your entire life to prove to you that you being dead is for the benefit of everyone"

When does the main character put his dong in a pig?

and then it turns out the dead people are being used for food

If it was all driver error, why did Toyota agree to pay a 1.2 billion dollar fine?

What was the deal with 80s Audis?

Sign me up

Worst episode of the entire series. Too bad it is first.

It's not stupid, it's worryingly prescient. Even Charlie Brooker was freaked out at how true his script turned-out to be.

[removed]

Weird. I didn't get that from the episode. I thought the point was that terrorism that doesn't actually change policy, but humiliates politicians, would succeed, because the government can basically treat the disgrace as an externality that impacts someone else.

In the Sliders episode The Breeders they slide into a dimension where everyone between I think 18-35 is part of a mandatory organ donor program and is implanted with a tracking chip and if someone 'important' needs an organ then you might just get the opportunity to save an important persons life by giving your own. Unfortunately this episode isn't really focused on that all to much as it is that a parasitic being from a previous dimension has taken control of maggie's body and wants to procreate.

That was a pretty good movie. Very depressing but still good.

Bred from birth to be an organ donor and then cut right at the prime of your life.

"It's not that stupid; it's been done before!"

That's not how stupid works

You know, them.

Right, because there's a logical scenario in which a self-driving car company/gov't would arbitrarily kill one person in order to save a dying one, such that trust in that gov't/self-driving car company would be completely eroded for no reason.

Cue Will Smith doing everything he can to save this movie.

Gigi, you're a genius

I, Robot*. iRobot makes the roomba.

No, just a joke.

But the pistol actually kills them so...

But in reality, it will probably be used for both.

Considering the PATRIOT Act was signed into law to "fight terrorism", only to be turned around and used for drug crimes, I have no doubt at all that if this sort of thing were legalized it would be used for countless nefarious purposes.

How convenient it would be for some totalitarian regime to have the ability to silence nearly anyone and everyone who dissents, simply by changing their travel parameters. Join a local group of socialists? Criticize a politician publicly? Take anywhere they wanted to go, instead lock the doors and take them to a "re-education center".

Sure, but then you have to become comfortable with the ever-fluctuating definitions of "hardcore," "petty," and "criminal."

Wrong. This is a terrible idea with tons of room for abuse. Police use entire SWAT teams to go after people with less than a gram of weed, you really think they're only going to use this for hardcore criminals?

You can't have one without the other. It's either freedom or "safety"

that's assuming that the system couldn't be hacked, which it inevitably would be

In a system where murderers are lumped in with nonviolent drug offenders, don't get your hopes up.

That kind of power should never be allowed to exist. Any possible use is just a temptation that would eventually lead to evil.

You know better than to think that it will be limited.

Remember all of those anti terrorist laws that have only and extensively been used in drug investigations?

Like swat teams!

Man that movie was great.

Could you imagine how much it would suck if your car got infected with some new type of ransomware and drove itself to a chop-shop while you were sleeping?

You must be one of those "It's fine officer, search my entire house.. I've nothing to hide" types.

"You have been charged with treason, due to:

• Participating in unlawful dissent speech
• Aiding and abetting known socialists

Your trip has been cancelled. Please wait while we transport you to the nearest re-education center for processing."

Plus you don't jump the queue just because you got into a car accident.

Good work, detective! Thx

Student nurse here currently working on a Transplant floor at a hospital in florida. I can tell you that 99% of our patients who are receiving these transplants need them due to chronic illnesses. Honestly, I've never seen a single one of our patients need the organ because of some injury like a car crash. They need them because of single (or multi) organ failure

my intuition (great source!)

Since when did /r/Futurology become averse to speculation!

Your intuition is the same as mine. Any traumatic injury severe enough to make you need a new organ is likely to kill you before you get on the organ donation list. Plus it would need to be an organ that medicine had a way to compensate for if you didn't have it, like a kidney, but in that case you'd need to lose both and that would be a severe trauma that you'd likely not survive as the aorta is nestled right in between them.

Thanks for the research.

Interesting, thanks for looking into that!

That retroactive review sounds a bit scary though.
It sounds like an appeal of a court sentence in which the decision might get overturned based on new evidence or something.
Like "Oh, we've just noticed you're an alcoholic, so we're going to need to have that liver back from you there, sir."

Jokes on them if they get my liver.

The good news is with Harvoni, Hepatitis C will be a thing of the past very soon meaning the number one cause of cirrhosis in the US will disappear. This will help lower the needed number of liver transplants significantly. The second leading cause in case you were interested is alcoholism.

Edit: I should clarify. The above was meant as chronic causes. In acute liver failure, Tylenol overdose is number 1 in the US followed by Hepatitis B. These are reversed in order in Europe. (These are conditions that will jump you to the top of the list if the criteria are met.)

So let's keep things fair. As we move to driver-less vehicles that are in less accidents, simply keep the same ratio of accidents per ride that we have today. An algorithm will determine if your ride would have statistically gotten into a fatal accident and the car will simply bypass the accident and take you directly to a hospital for organ harvesting.

I've watched a lot of Grey's Anatomy, so I feel like I could answer this... but I'm too busy trying to figure out how to get interns to have the sexy times with me.

They give them to the alchies instead!

From himself?

^{Written by Christopher Nolan}

It's possible, but even if it happened, the recipient would never know. Great care is taken to ensure that the recipient doesn't know where the organ came from.

I agree. However motorcycle accidents are usually the number 1 source of donations.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/motorcycle-helmets-and-donor-organs/?_r=0

If I'm in a non-fatal car crash and you try to take my organs, we're going to have problems.

Wow, my city is doing more than just consuming copious amounts of drugs? Nice.

How exciting! I'll have to follow that in the news, thanks

Human tissues - just like blowing your nose on another human.

How long before the regressive Republicans decide it's immoral and use their complete power to shut it down?

No, this is correct. The self driving car technology is already commercially viable to a large degree. The tech industry is just moving very cautiously with it so as not to spook the masses right now, but it's going to explode the way cell phones did. Kids born today will likely be the last to experience a world where people drove cars in more than a novel capacity

Well, I hope there's not too big of a gap between the two. And it will probably take a while for the majority of the population to start using the self driving cars so that may give us a little bit more of a buffer.

Completely getting everyone to buy into having a self-driven society is a long, long way off. I think we'll have the organ growing thing at about the same time.

I mean we already have self-driving tech that works great, it's just mass producing it

Fully autonomous cars still have a way to go both from a regulatory standpoint and a technological one.

They don't do so well in the rain, poorly maintained roads, or the snow. Even, once that's solved, regulations need to be updated by agencies that are perpetually in the past.

Self driving tech is leaps and bounds closer to becoming a reality.

3D tissue printing from stem cells is exciting, but it is extremely far away from practice as of yet. Just creating simple "structural" organs, such as a trachea, is difficult, let alone organs such as large bowel.

I'm not so sure about that. I bought a 2016 VW with Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Assist and I've spent the last week driving a 2016 Toyota similarly equipped. The VW is waaaaaay better but still a long way off from self driving. Merging, people suddenly changing lanes, lights/stop signs (I understand some companies have figured this out, such as Tesla, but Uber has been having difficulties), construction/unusual roads are just some of the many obstacles that the cars can't handle.

Just those features add quite a substantial cost to the car and retrofitting a car is probably even more expensive. How many cars do you see on the road that are more than five years old? In five years that proportion is not likely to change. If cars were to be self driving (as a standard option) this year you still wouldn't see that many self driving cars without a giant subsidy.

Fifty years is a stretch but we're a good 20+ years from self-driving cars affecting organ donation to this extent.

How long do you think that it will take for self driving cars to become the majority of cars on the road? Or become the only cars on the road?

It may still take awhile for this technology to get approved for driving everywhere, for the technology to get cheap enough for everyone to afford it, for enough people to purchase these cars that self driving cars become the norm, and to get the public to trust the technology enough to start buying it en masse. That could reasonably take a few decades, during which organ growing and regeneration technology will also be advancing. There may be a gap between when the two come out for the general public but hopefully it won't be that big.

I'm sure they will, but I think there's still going to be a while till they are the majority of cars being driven on the road due to cost, how often people buy new vs used cars, legislation allowing the self driving cars on the road, and how long it takes to get over public distrust of the new technology. So that should give the organ technology some time to catch up before organ shortages becomes too much of an issue.

You'd be surprised on what convictions on medical procedures people will be willing to compromise when it's a choice between life or death. They may also not consider this a GMO. Who knows?

I'm all for that! If I've passed on then I'd rather my organs be used to help someone else survive.

We sadly would probably would have to do some sort of public awareness campaign telling people that "NO- the doctors won't intentionally let you die if you're an organ donor!"

Of the G20 countries, Canada is the only one without a formal organ donation system, actually, in spite of millions and millions being spent on strategic development.

You are right.

Only shithole countries have opt-out.

But becoming opt out unless the family disagrees soon.

Its optie out

Were you guys the world leader in number or per capita of donations , or both?

But the idea is still good: it should be an opt-out thing.

Wait I can't tell if that means the donate more or die more in car crashes.

Stop interfering with the narrative here. USA BAD EUROPE GOOD.

[deleted]

The US has way more traffic and trauma deaths (per capita) than Norway although I don't actually believe we are a opt-out country (it's the family's decision)

The fuck you on about? Sweden is NOT opt-out.

That link also says they dont refer for dialysis making people unelligible for kidney transplants being a main reason for the waiting list disappearing. In plain english: they have a lot more people dying who would be on the waiting list, but still alive, in most western countries.

Minnesota is opt-in. At least it was 2 years ago when I got my new license after moving back from Indiana and retaking the written test (missed being able to just change addresses by 3 days too! Since my old MN license expired at that point. Darn.) We're just all too nice and feel obligated internally to opt-in.

I don't know anyone who doesn't opt in except for a single Muslim family. They are medical professionals though, and donate a ton of money to research instead.

Obviously this is anecdota in both, but even when a large university seminar asked how many people were organ donors only the two Muslim students in a did not raise their hands.

In my experience it is seen as selfish and... (Wrong? Immoral? I'm not sure exactly what word I am looking for. It is almost taboo.) To not be an organ donor.

This is in NC.

I think most would still opt-out. Whoever started that "they'll just let you die to harvest your organs" piece of FUD did a damn good job of spreading it about.

France recently became opt-out for organ donations.

Germany is opt-in. You need to carry a signed donor agreement to be .... uhm ... harvested. In lack for a better word.

Will you be bringing that stick in your ass into the grave with you?

They are not required in about 30 state and trust me people in those states don't wear them.

Cut out the middleman. Round up and execute motorcyclists whenever we need more organs.

I don't really have anything to back this up besides my own experience, but I feel like the worry that The State will forcibly harvest your organs is a pretty niche fear in the general populace...

[deleted]

Those that would be willing to participate in a witch hunt are the same who would opt-out so not sure I see a problem here.

you have any sources that countries with opt-out organ donation have more cases of erroneous organ harvesting?

it seems to me that if you have 90% of the population as organ donors from an opt-out policy then there will be more organs available and it will be less likely for organs to be taken from someone who could live.

with 15% of the population signed up for opt-in organ donation, there will be less organs available and it will be more likely for a surgeon to go to questionable or extreme measures to procure organs for her patient.

anyway, organs are better from the living than from the dead, but it's probably best for this to be deliberately done based on brain death rather than mistakenly taken.

What on earth are you going on about?

You like an idea primarily to offend people? And a minority of people at that? Wtf?

Not true. My wide controls the money.

I already do. I write one every year to the government for my taxes.

Unless the sciences can make money from how high my check will bounce, I don't see that as being helpful.

This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Are you a child?

Visit us at /r/kidney_match. it's a long shot, but we have matched one person with a very generous donor.

This. Cells don't come from elsewhere in your body. Your liver makes new liver cells. That's it. Any growth of the donated tissue would be genetically identical to the donated tissue.

Now, theoretically if the liver transplant was relieved while you still had functioning portions of your original, that portion will regrow more tissue. In a purely hypothetical stance you could regrow someone's liver by using the donated lobe to allow recovery time. In reality, I don't think the original line would ever regrow enough, and the original/donor lobes would likely cross-contaminate and make it impossible to ever wean off the donor lobe.

Edit: a word

Do you really think that isn't being pursued?

Burn the heretic!

Ding ding ding.

They're aren't researching that? Jeez... I guess you're right, somebody should tell them.

Psst. You want to buy organ? Fresh and cheap, ready for transplant

If you know a guy.

And possibly have a house in Vancouver or San Francisco's higher demand areas that you'd be willing to trade title over.

You don't want to sell me spleen.

Fuckin' amateurs

Yeah but I will just be hungry for another spleen an hour later.

With nail polish?

法輪大--(dragged into back of van)

This is a joke but actually it's a real point that a lot of serious economists and other experts make about the organ market.

In the US it's illegal to sell your own organs, even though it's legal to donate them for free (either the ones you can live with 1 copy of while you're alive, or the rest after death). There's a lot of evidence that if we lifted this restriction, far more organs would become available.

Sure, it's distasteful for people to sell their organs for money, but then again if that's actually a rational transaction for them to enter into based on their current life situation, why should the government stop them from doing it? Lots of poor people in really dire situations might be better off with $1,000,000 and one kidney than they are with $0 and two kidneys. And a lot more people would opt in to organ donation after death if they could get $2000 for signing a policy to that effect today.

Now, there's lots of strong objections to this plan, in terms of how it changes the incentive structure for doctors, medical researchers, insurance companies, etc., and how it introduces even more economically inequality to medicine than we already have. But there's also the question of how may people you're willing to let die unnecessarily every year to avoid those problems.

[deleted]

It is also maliciously exploitative of people's cognitive blind spots. A UI designer would call that a dark pattern. Find a way to fix the problem that doesn't take advantage of people's ignorance, willful or otherwise.

Seriously. Organ donation should be the default.

And doctors are ignorant of that?

Opt-out is a very old idea. You're talking about political change. The comment was about "innovation".

I don't think that offering money for organs is good, it creates incentive for poor people to lower their health standard for money. Eventually we might see a world where your refused help if you haven't sold some of your organs as a line of defense

To be fair, my country has been opt-out for as long as I can remember. What else can be done?

It is very effective indeed at taking advantage of people by forcing them to stop someone else from doing something to them. I cannot stand this tactic.

I dont think paying is the right way because it incentivizes poor people to sell thier organs for survival.

This is why there is some interesting work being done in matching markets. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/11/412224854/how-an-economist-helped-patients-find-the-right-kidney-donor

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/07/alvin_roth_on_m.html

A couple years ago a company was able to 3d print heart muscle into a functionimg heart. But has it gone anywhere? Nope. It has some funding but the backing just isnt there for these programs.

That seems unlikely, since being able to custom-produce functional hearts would be an absolute gold mine for some company. Could you provide some kind of source on that?

'#everykidcurescancer aside, we're not all going to wear lab coats and compare flasks and beakers with our days. It's systems, not individuals, that turn problems around.

right now the system is mostly indifferent to organ replacement. Too many other variables fuck shit up (antibacteriocide resistant staph comes to mind), and though heart disease is the leading killer, heart surgeons are not the leading medical practice, nor are cholesterol treatments the first priority for pharmaceutical research. There are too many other profitable lines of treatments, and the intersection of patient and industry is still the wallet.

Sometimes capitalism just doesn't work in a straightforward manner.

I mean letting the people who need the organs die.

You know, the whole forgotten concept of "I have gotten sick beyond my body's natural ability to heal itself; perhaps now is the untimely moment of my demise."

Ok, fine, but that doesn't mean it's good for them to die. Otherwise we could just pick random people off the street and shoot them in the head, then harvest their organs. I don't think anyone other than the strictest utilitarian would be OK with that even though you're saving multiple lives at the expense of one. So unless you'd advocate for that, you can't really argue self driving cars saving lives is a bad thing due to the organ issue.

If that's your argument for why it's bad that fewer healthy people die in car accidents to become organ donors why stop there? Let's start a lottery to select healthy citizens to harvest - each selected donor could save up to 50 people, after all...

1 organ donor = potentially 8 other lives.

When I had my first liver transplant, two other patients in my clinic each received a kidney from the same donor.

While that is true, people don't live long with donated organs.

Don't forget that those needing organs may also be able to provide much of that tissue donation themselves when they die. It's not a 1:1 tradeoff, but it's certainly not a 50:1 either. Also, are you really comparing the value of some minor tissue donations to that of a human life? Someone not getting an eye isn't exactly going to cause them to die.

Out from the night from the mist steps a figure.
No one really knows his name for sure.
He stands at six foot six, head and shoulders,
Pray he never comes knocking at your door.
Say that you once bought a heart or new corneas,
But somehow never managed to square away your debts.
He won't bother to write or to phone you...
He'll just rip your still-beating heart from your chest!

A large quantity of car crash victims are so beat up their organs can't be used I would imagine. So while one donor saves many lives. Many lives are lost in the build up.

Yep. If the OP of this comment thread really wanted to look at it for the "greater good" they'd see this as a problem. So many people benefit from just one person being a donor. While I agree it's great people won't die in car accidents, it's not like people who need transplants are suddenly less deserving of life. There are children on that waitlist, people who have no control over what is happening to their organs, and yet it's better they die than someone else. Not to mention that most accidents are caused by distracted driving.. if they really want to scrutinize the morality of it, the medical patients surely deserves life "more", yes?

Do we know that for sure though? It's also improper to look at it using donor numbers but car accident numbers instead. Not all fatal crashes lead to donatable organs. Not all crashes are fatal but many can cause a lifetime of pain or disability. Not all donated organs lead to saved lives. Many said saved lives are saved for a very short term. You may well be right but it's a far more complex math equation than just for every donor x organs get donated.

Humans bred to have pig organs?

Unless there is a surge of transplants because of ass cancer, we should still have plenty of hot dogs.

cows, cuz pork hot dogs are gross

I think we're good - the anus and lips would still be available.

That "organ donor' check box will take on a sinister meaning....

The porkchops that aren't perfect.

Eat the kosher kind, it's healthier for you and they are more tasty.

I'd hope so; can you imagine a hot dog company building its brand around organ-grower pigs?

Donor Dogs "Eat a pig who's done more for humanity than you ever will"

Beholden Bacon- "Don't forget to breathe between mouthfuls of this tasty fella who grew your new lungs" or "Honestly this pig is too good for you, and for this earth"

Grandma is that you?

My apologies: I was multitasking whilst writing.

Edit Some fantastic news reported from ieee spectrum suggesting that we might not have to worry so much about heart transplants come 2017. Check this link below, it's a positively exciting read :)

http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/completely-artificial-hearts-coming-to-a-chest-cavity-near-you

I am the mind set of 'deal with the new problem' this whole masking disease symptoms with pills that have even worse side effects is not that much better. I suppose that is part of the issue as well the ethics behind it. Not too many people are on board with mad science experiments that could push envelopes or boundaries for the very reasons you stated good sir. But to be fair it is rather moot in other examples as the DEA and drug scheduling has nothing to do with how science sees a product versus how the government wants it to be controlled. And alternatively you have products like the now discontinued Galaxy Note 7, where's all the testing and regulation for consumer entertainment and electronic systems it is simply resource allocation to priorities based on subject urgency. I know it to be improbable and mostly impossible but if we could channel the brightest minds in the world for like one common good (like the ebola outbreak/threat awhile back and the ensuing development for a vaccine, I read on reddit that they achieved a working vaccine for it just recently) at a time I believe we would start making advancements in all sorts of fields exponentially, but brilliant minds are out there wasting precious compounding time pushing envelopes in fields that may be more lucrative more quickly with less oversight and less regulation. I went on too long, good night, thank you for the fresh perspective.

My condition is an autoimmune disorder, meaning it can recur again, which it did in my first transplanted liver. Removing the diseased liver from the body is the only known "cure" (in quotes because, like I said, it can always come back).

I had my second transplant last year, on Christmas, 2015. I turned 25 the following March.

You're hired.

That is more like Ken M. You win sir.

We are all organ donators on this precious day.

What is factual is the potential for cost savings; money spent now on accident victims could be used for organ replacement research (artificial printing, stem cell cultivating, etc... referenced elsewhere in this post)

We spend untold tens of billions of dollars in the aftermath of vehicle accidents.
Edit: the cost of crashes is almost $1B every day in the US

If accident rates are significantly reduced through accident avoidance technology, there is a fortune to be redirected to better uses.