I remember reading about this technique, using inkjet technology for constructing artificial organs, a few years ago. It's starting to pay off:

Cells seem to survive the printing process well. When layers of chicken heart cells were printed they quickly begin behaving as they would in a real organ. "After 19 hours or so, the whole structure starts to beat in a synchronous manner," says Forgacs.

The future may be here sooner than we think. And it makes things like Larry Niven's concern about people harvesting corpsickles for body parts seem pretty silly.

Well, it sounds like you need donor cells to make the cell puree that you start from. So instead of a body shop, this is another use of solyent green...

And it makes things like Larry Niven's concern about people harvesting corpsickles for body parts seem pretty silly.

Well, sure, now. But I think at the time he was writing that stuff, nobody had thought of this kind of thing. Did they even have inkjet printers in the 70s?

Well, sure, now. But I think at the time he was writing that stuff, nobody had thought of this kind of thing. Did they even have inkjet printers in the 70s?

Well, even then it seemed kind of silly to me. I recall arguing with him about it in 1989. Even then it seemed pretty obvious that we were going to have some way of growing organs, whether like this, or cloning, or molecular manufacturing. Not to mention the fact that cryosuspended organs would be so damaged as to be worthless.

What's silly about it? Niven's nightmare is real now -- just go to China and start yelling "Screw this illegal regime, Falung Gong for everyone!" and there's a good chance your organs will be distributed among the more deserving before very long. OK, they don't keep organs in vats, but who needs vats when you can execute a fresh prisoner whenever you want?

Niven was right, dammit.

I already explained why Niven was wrong. It's not because people are intrinsically good, and would never do such a thing. It's because organs cryonically suspended have no current value as transplants, and by the time they do, there will be better ways of getting them, and the patients themselves will be revivable.

Mike and Rand, you are arguing about different things. Niven was wrong about viability (bad pun intended) of transplanting cryonically suspended organs, but was quite right about taking apart young healthy convicts. In some parts of the world, anyway.

Niven wasn't talking about "healthy young convicts." He was specifically talking about cryonicists.

I don't think Larry Niven's stories specifically described the storage technology. In the short story where the guy with too many traffic tickets runs amok in a jail/hospital, the protagonist smashes lots of plastic tanks of fluid with various organs in them. Why bother freezing them when there is plenty of demand?

Niven wasn't talking about "healthy young convicts." He was specifically talking about cryonicists.

Uh, Rand? "The Jigsaw Man"? That's the freakin' point of the story!

What's nightmarish about Niven's organ banks is not that they contain preserved body parts -- hell, we'd do that today with donated organs if we could, and nobody would be particularly squeamish about using them -- but how those organs got there, from confdemned criminals whose lives were deemed forfeit by the State for trivial offenses.

SPOILER:

At the end of "The Jigsaw Man," we find out that the viewpoint character faces death and dismemberment for the heinous crime of speeding and running through a red light. Society has been corrupted by the need for spare parts ... and if the only source for them is living people, society will find a way to justify carving up healthy people For The Greater Good.

I'm not talking about Larry Niven's stories. I'm talking about specific discussions (including various panels at SF and Cryonics conferences) with Larry Niven.

I'm not talking about Larry Niven's stories. I'm talking about specific discussions (including various panels at SF and Cryonics conferences) with Larry Niven.

You sure didn't qualify your statements earlier. Remember, most of your readers weren't privy to these conversations of yours, and so I was going by Niven's public statements, including his writings, on the subject of organ transplantation and misuse thereof.

"The Jigsaw Man" is one of Niven's earliest and best-known short stories. I asked him in 1968 (at LASFS) shortly after the story came out whether he intended it to be satire on the level of Swift's "A Modest Proposal," and he replied that he really was concerned about the risk to our society posed by the temptation to make organs available By Any Means Necessary. So I think it's fair to say that this was indeed a concern of his, expressed in his stories. And yes, the nightmare is coming true.

Also, I'm curious ... In many of Niven's stories, the point of turning people into corpsicles was to revive them later (for example, to cure them of diseases or fix profound injuries). Even when this wasn't the point and corpsicles were being stored for their organs they could be revived (c.f. "The Patchwork Girl"). Given this premise, which you evidently find unfeasible (and I suspect you're right), what's so silly about worrying about adverse consequences of this technology?

You sure didn't qualify your statements earlier.

Sorry, I didn't realize the need for it. I wasn't aware of those earlier stories. My point was that, in 1989, he was using this in panel discussions (not just in his fiction) as an argument against cryonics, and it seemed nonsensical to me at the time. And does even more so now.