By the way, if you ever get critically injured you can only receive O blood. Maybe someone out there will have been “individualistic” enough to have dropped a pint for you.

But to demand that I give it out to anyone in need of it seems to me to treat human beings as nothing more than complex machines. Repair them and put them back on the assembly line.

As opposed to treating them like disposable flashlights?

Like I said, stupidest thing in 6 days.

The reason we have global warming, a mass extinction event on our hands, and are looking long and hard down the barrel of our own gruesome extinction is because there are 6.5 billion of us: a totally unsustainable state of affairs. And that’s due to our philanthropy. We love humanity, and we act on it. None of us ever die, but more are constantly born. We rush food and medicine where it is needed. The efforts of our entire species even out all shortfalls with charity, to ensure that there is never a plague or famine. Like the U.S. forestry service’s anti-fire programs of the 1980s, this well-intentioned road to hell has set the stage for an inevitable catastrophe far worse than any of the shortfalls we bridged previously. Rwanda is a microcosm; it’s the end result when we swoop in with our help to keep people from starving to death. The population goes up, and then the genocide begins. Ultimately, all our philanthropy accomplishes is a far greater disaster, postponed slightly into the future.

It’s the same attitude behind giving blood. Loving your flesh-and-blood neighbor is sustainable; an abstract love of humanity is not. The selfish gene is the cornerstone of life, and though altruism can develop as a great way to attain our selfish ends, it’s not sustainable when we extend its benefits to the abstract level of our entire species, benevolently protecting people we’ve never met.

I’m not arguing it’s ethical, except that the long-term consequences of philanthropy are far worse than the short-term benefits. I’m arguing that it’s unsustainable, and the root cause of our current crisis. We refuse to countenance any of the natural up-and-down of life. We want to go up, always up, all the time. We don’t ever want to taste down. Keep going that way long enough, and you run into the sun.

Say my food, then, or my money.

Okay, let’s say that. Would you be offended if someone were to ask you to donate food to the hungry? Or money to the poor? Maybe you would, but I don’t think the majority of us would respond the same way.

As for this, I think I already thoroughly explained my objection. If you can’t see why the industrialization of the human body is wrong or why I would object to it, I really don’t think we have much to discuss.

But my point is that just because we happen to associate the word “product” with capitalism does not mean that these people are “industrializing the human body.” As far as I can tell, you’re simply reading too much into a phrase that was used mostly for the sake of accuracy.

Maybe I should have said individualistic economy. Don’t blame me for the shortcomings of the English language. There is a key difference here; we’re talking about two different kinds of individualism. There is an individualism in which individuals mutually work for the needs of each, and there is this sort of individualism, in which some individuals are rewarded at the expense of other individuals, and yet at the personal level this sort of “ethic of replaceability” dominates.

Okay, well now I just have no idea what you mean when you talk about “individualism.”

Look at what I already said. “it is not impossible that I could be persuaded to give this child blood,” I wrote. Even if I didn’t know her/him. The keys are choice and respect.

And they’re asking you to make a choice. It’s not as though somebody’s holding a gun to your head. You’re perfectly free to say no.

My point was just that saying that it’s society’s fault if someone doesn’t happen to know anybody who can give them blood is probably an oversimplification. There are other factors that come into play.

This is a false dilemma. I have a responsibility to some others, AS I SAID. Let’s quote me again: “Don’t get me wrong. I’m not being needlessly selfish. If someone I care about were to need my blood I would give it in an instant.” Perhaps I should have made this statement a little more clear: since blood transfusion technology exists, I’d be more than willing to take advantage of it where and when I chose to do so. Again, there are some individuals to whom I have a responsibility. There are others to whom I do not.

Do you see the nuance of that? Not “I have a responsibility to others.” That sort of thinking is disrespectful both toward myself AND TOWARD THESE “OTHERS,” who are recieving my help NOT because they are a person I respect and care about and toward whom I have freely entered into a relationship of mutual responsibility, but because some incorporeal outside force told me I HAVE to.

From an ethical point of view, however, what makes people you know any more important than those you don’t know? Is your entire view of morality based solely on subjects’ relation to yourself?

I don’t need to address this in depth again, but I’m very bothered by your use of authoritarian language here.

Authoritarian language? Yes, soon I will crush the entire world under the jackbooted heel of normative ethics!

As for “saving a person’s life”… That’s a bad justification for anything, in my opinion, because any number of things could “save a person’s life,” like outlawing abortion and exterminating snakes spiders and jellyfish, and they’re still wrong.

These situations aren’t equivalent, though. Outlawing abortion may help some people. But it would also do alot of harm. Same with exterminating snakes, spiders, and jellyfish. Giving blood isn’t the same thing. It’s pretty clear cut. This is something that’s going purely toward medical purposes.

A love of humans is sustainable; a love of humanity is the well-intentioned road to hell. Donating to a blood bank is another incarnation of that, asking us to sacrifice ourselves personally for the abstract concept of “humanity” as a whole–so that our species may be spared all ill, and instead enjoy unchecked, eternal, exponential growth. As any tumor should.

Somehow, I don’t think you can compare donating blood to what happened in Rwanda. The problem is not that we have people who want to help humanity. The problem is that most of the people who want to help humanity aren’t doing it. If everybody who wanted to help humanity actually was helping humanity, we’d be in great shape.

I’m sure if you were the one in need of a blood transfusion, you wouldn’t be looking at the blood bank as a “tumor.”

So, I have no more problem saving selfish bastards as I do saving little girls. It’s not for me to determine who should live and who should die, and I’m not sure if a selfish bastard’s claim to life is any more or less valid than a 6-year-old girl from a poor family.

Myself, I liked the article. It’s interesting, well-written, and passionately argued. I don’t necessarily agree (in my own case, not giving blood actually causes me physical ailment, as too much iron will get clogged up in my veins … not only do I get to help some miscellaneous someone, I also help myself), but I can see your point.

Perhaps the larger issue which, correct me if I’m wrong but, seems to be underlying your case here as an unspoken assumption…. There is a difference between a love of mankind, and a love of men. Donating blood to a blood bank helps “humanity”; donating blood for your cousin helps a human.

Tribal societies concerned themselves only with humans. They helped the people they knew. They formed a community where they supported one another. That worked very well. That is very evolutionarily stable.

Today, we try to help humanity. We try to stop starvation, disease, homelessness and poverty on a global scale. The result is war, famine, genocide, overpopulation, and catastrophe. A love of humans is sustainable; a love of humanity is the well-intentioned road to hell. Donating to a blood bank is another incarnation of that, asking us to sacrifice ourselves personally for the abstract concept of “humanity” as a whole–so that our species may be spared all ill, and instead enjoy unchecked, eternal, exponential growth. As any tumor should.

Say my food, then, or my money.

“Your blood is, in fact, a product created by the combination of cells from your bone marrow. And in this particular context, the phrase “blood product” seems to be mostly a matter of accuracy. Blood banks don’t just give people blood. Often they take the blood you give them and break it down into its constituent parts. And what they give people is that material that is produced from your blood, i.e. blood products.”

As for this, I think I already thoroughly explained my objection. If you can’t see why the industrialization of the human body is wrong or why I would object to it, I really don’t think we have much to discuss.

“What amazes me is that you can criticize individualism in a post that is essentially an ode to the self.”

Maybe I should have said individualistic economy. Don’t blame me for the shortcomings of the English language. There is a key difference here; we’re talking about two different kinds of individualism. There is an individualism in which individuals mutually work for the needs of each, and there is this sort of individualism, in which some individuals are rewarded at the expense of other individuals, and yet at the personal level this sort of “ethic of replaceability” dominates.

“Rare types of blood.”

Look at what I already said. “it is not impossible that I could be persuaded to give this child blood,” I wrote. Even if I didn’t know her/him. The keys are choice and respect.

“You don’t owe anybody anything, right?”

Did I say this?

I owe a lot of people a lot of things. You probably owe a lot of other people a lot of different things. Some people probably don’t owe anybody anything. I don’t owe anyone anything automatically.

“That sounds an awful lot like individualism to me”

It should. You said it.

“If you do have a moral responsibility for others, then you should give your blood. If you do not have such a responsibility, then you are being just as individualistic as the culture you say caused the problem. ”

This is a false dilemma. I have a responsibility to some others, AS I SAID. Let’s quote me again: “Donā??t get me wrong. Iā??m not being needlessly selfish. If someone I care about were to need my blood I would give it in an instant.” Perhaps I should have made this statement a little more clear: since blood transfusion technology exists, I’d be more than willing to take advantage of it where and when I chose to do so. Again, there are some individuals to whom I have a responsibility. There are others to whom I do not.

Do you see the nuance of that? Not “I have a responsibility to others.” That sort of thinking is disrespectful both toward myself AND TOWARD THESE “OTHERS,” who are recieving my help NOT because they are a person I respect and care about and toward whom I have freely entered into a relationship of mutual responsibility, but because some incorporeal outside force told me I HAVE to.

I already made this point. You are choosing to ignore it. AND I made the point that BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS SOCIETY many people DO NOT HAVE that kind of support network and that THEREFORE, I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO WHAT I COULD TO HELP THEM if the situation called for it.

“And since that culture is wrong, you should give your blood.”

I don’t need to address this in depth again, but I’m very bothered by your use of authoritarian language here.

“It’s an interesting read, but I just don’t see how philosophical musings about the nature of the self is more important than saving a person’s life.”

There are two issues here: “philosophical musings about the self” and “saving a person’s life.” As for the first, I’ve already addressed it. I shouldn’t have used the word “individualistic” to describe the corporate econoomy. That is their appropriation of the word; it’s not individualistic and it never has been. From its inception industrialism has been based upon destroying individual identity (while, of course, rewarding a few individuals at the expense of many, many more). That is the basis of the system that is killing the planet and I refuse to allow it into my own body.

As for “saving a person’s life”… That’s a bad justification for anything, in my opinion, because any number of things could “save a person’s life,” like outlawing abortion and exterminating snakes spiders and jellyfish, and they’re still wrong. I know you don’t agree with the cases I just mentioned. That’s not the point. The point is in my opinion–and more to the point, in my practice–this is one of those cases. You may have a different opinion and follow a different practice, and that’s fine–I never said “No one should give blood ever.” I never used the word “should” at all. All I ask is the same courtesy.

Also, your objection to the phrase “blood product” seems to me to be mostly a matter of disliking corporations. The term “product” does not necessarily have to be a product in the marketing sense. A product is anything that is created as a result of some process. Your blood is, in fact, a product created by the combination of cells from your bone marrow. And in this particular context, the phrase “blood product” seems to be mostly a matter of accuracy. Blood banks don’t just give people blood. Often they take the blood you give them and break it down into its constituent parts. And what they give people is that material that is produced from your blood, i.e. blood products.

You talk about how you don’t get to decide where your blood goes, and a few paragraphs later your write, “On the day I die all that I am will to go others. But it will be my choice: my hope is to come to know intimately the ground in which I will be planted, the beings who will recieve my life.” But of course, that’s not entirely true. No matter how well we plan our own deaths, none of us really have any say over what happens to our bodies when we die. We don’t get to decide which worms consume our corpse. Besides which, your body is already falling apart without your permission. Even as we speak, hair follicles are falling away, skin cells are dying and being replaced by new ones. Practically your whole body is in the constant process of dying and rebuilding itself. Yet none of this seems to send you into an existential crisis of self.

According to you, if somebody can’t get blood, “itā??s the fault of this disgustingly individualistic culture.” I suppose we’ll ignore for the time being the fact that certain types of blood are very rare. What amazes me is that you can criticize individualism in a post that is essentially an ode to the self. After all, you’re you and all that you consist of is you. You don’t owe anybody else anything, right? Nor do you need to listen to what the “industrial economy” says is moral. You can make your own decisions about right and wrong. In other words, what we have here is individual liberty, importance of the individual, self-reliance, and independence. That sounds an awful lot like individualism to me. You do, of course, see the problem, don’t you? If you do have a moral responsibility for others, then you should give your blood. If you do not have such a responsibility, then you are being just as individualistic as the culture you say caused the problem. And since that culture is wrong, you should give your blood.

It’s an interesting read, but I just don’t see how philosophical musings about the nature of the self is more important than saving a person’s life.

(Maybe one day I’ll give a detailed reply to this–but probably not, it’s my usual policy to leave people who completely disagree to their opinions.)