[onion2k]

This makes him Yudkowsky the perfect lab animal! Think of the things we can learn, the lives we can save by performing experiments (that most think are unethical) on him!

Only if you have a way to stop the other people getting dust in their eyes. Otherwise you're merely increasing the amount of suffering rather than mitigating it by transferring it all to one person.

[teekert]

Of course, we'd have to be sure first. But, perhaps we can start right away with splitting his organs among people who are on the waiting lists, surely, just with his kidneys we can already increase the life of two persons more than the kidneys can increase his life alone. Imagine if we harvest all of his organs!

What a guy and what a theory this moral utilitarianism! It's great! Think of the possibilities, they're endless.

I always thought that the only one who could put a value on my life was me. But this moral utilitarianism makes things so much simpler.

[FeepingCreature]

Honestly?

If there was an insurance where I could sign up and they'd optionally harvest my organs if they'd find a really lopsided situation like "save those other three people and you're a really good bodytype match", I'd sign up for that if it gave me better expected lifetime than regular approaches. - Just because it's taboo, doesn't mean it's bad. Just because you consider it absurd doesn't mean that others would.

[teekert]

Well the piece says "torture someone" not "torture someone who has agreed to this torture because he himself wants what's best for the world." If the latter was the case I'd be fine with it. I'd also be fine with your insurance scheme as long as it is not mandatory.

[shinigami]

If you kill Yudkowsky, then the evil AI will take over since he won't be there to save the world. Therefore harvesting his organs won't be worthwhile. (He actually believes this).