/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3151997
They said they expect a weekly donation, but will accept donations every 48-72 hours. Seems like a cool way to make some cash, and help out some infertile folks.

>>3151993
>responding only to the inb4's
>0/10 troll
>0/10, I can do math too.

>>3151990
What country is that? By non-anonymous, do you mean that the couple has access to your personal contact information, and the offspring can find you? Details, man.

Dear /sci/,

I am considering applying to be a sperm donor at a local sperm bank. They compensate at 60 dollars a sample. I've also an interest in eventually becoming a genetic counselor myself. Has /sci/ had any experience with this, and clinical genetics / in vitro in general?
Also, general discussion thread for genetics/eugenics/reproductive technologies.

>inb4 hurr durr don't donate sperm, your genetics are not good
>inb4 BIOLOGY IS PIG DISGUSTING PHYSICS RULES

>>2820502
Dude, that is exactly the kind of shit I was thinking about. Kudos.

>>2820528
I'm not expecting anything to work, believe it or not, I can handle girls quite well and don't need this type of shit. Just a curiousfag.

>>2820440
lolno

>>2820445
All right, I'll check that out...

Everyone else, I was asking for a scientific method, such as using a specific type of body language, where to look at her face, saying something to stir her subconscious, or whatnot...

To all those talking about capital letters:
My same friend thinks that capital letters are "a dictatorship"

>>2188588
Well, of course there is an insufficiency of evidence or human knowledge linking those two phenomena. There is a vast amount of space between the capacities of understanding of the connections between both physical body and mind.

>>2188609
If an insect's Central Nervous System were integrating sensory input and yielding the motor output of every stimulant from its environment and own body more slowly. This could mean its visual audial perception might also occur less rapidly. It would then be even more abstract to say, this relativity may even go as far as to reach the fields of perception of time.
-> Humans move slowly to ants.. whereas they motions are very swift.

Their perception and thought/integration is much slower, leading to a smaller chance of error or mental incapability.

>>2188566
Yes, that is reasonable. But is there any known specific physiological function that is responsible for perception of duration? Perhaps a sector of the brain, but if there is one specific, how might physical size be dependent?

Is it same-fagging if you use a separate character's voice?

They won't follow your irrational logic, and you must be more specific. You're too high for 4chan, go to youtube or to sleep or something.

To add - and relative reaction times between every organism, also based on mass or size.

Mass; or size, because I'm not definite on which would be more factorial.

>>2038019
>>2038069
>>2039352
Just read it, thanks for turning me onto that. It's completely unrelated though. Funny as hell but unrelated

also, down's syndrome usually isn't hereditary. it can't be bread out of society like midgets could be. not saying there's anything wrong with little people, it's just the only example I can think of off the top of my head. maybe sickle cell anemia, I don't care to look it up though. you should all understand the point I am making by now

You're all idiots, arguing about purebred dogs vs. mutts. Mutts can be just as healthy as purebred dogs. The point I was making was looking for specific things to try and enhance in the human population. We don't eliminate any sections of the population altogether.
Even Jews can contribute their ability to get money from anything

>>2038573
I wasn't asking whether or not it would work. It would work. It's an extension of natural selection which, as far as I'm concerned, works. I posed the question here to discuss the moral ramifications.

we still ought to kill inferior babies. nothing so far has made me believe otherwise. if natural selection works, this will work. that's fact. all I'm suggesting is we introduce predators in the form of laws that cull the weak. its what drives genetic improvement

>>2038231
if we bred dogs to not have tumors or fucked up eyes they would be fine. I'm not saying we should shrink the population, i'm saying we should balance it.

>>2038196
we cull by pedigree. we can't go looking for these genetic markers in everyone everytime someone wants a kid. we can, however, look at if their families have problems often

>>2038174
what's up then

>>2038140
too pessimistic. I'm sure you've encountered stupid people that were so annoyingly stupid that you wanted to beat the shit out of them just for not being smarter. What if everyone was smarter? That's all I'm suggesting guys. Hell, we could selectively breed for better teeth by tracing pedigrees of people who tend to keep their teeth longer than the average and allowing people from those bloodlines to reproduce more

>>2038087
Culling the weak and sick from the herd has never been a deterrent to a species. There's enough of us to spare a few people from the shallow end of the gene pool so that we, as a people, become a deeper pool.

I don't even think it's debatable whether it would work or not. It's natural selection, unnaturally. There are very few predators of human that effect a persons chance of reproducing. Without predators culling the weak and the stupid, we no longer have natural selection beyond finding the best mate. I am suggesting that we replace the predators with laws.

>>2038122
if someone is willing to do some actual math to stand against me then come at me bro. I'm only suggesting the potential of the concept. yes I know using the word potential here is a jab at my whole argument

>>2038071
Science, baby! Imagine all the possibilities! If, somehow, a system like this went into effect today, I think we could all notice a change for the better within 10 years. Within 50 years people would, on average, be more intelligent. I have no mathematics background so I can only make guesses, but imagine if the average IQ was 120? 150? If this system went into effect in 1900 we could very well be there today.

>>2038013
you can definitely decide who's more likely to develop negative tendencies. Besides, if you come back to my point about potential...where do we draw the line on killing potential? One could truly argue that every time someone doesn't have sex and induce pregnancy, they are killing a potential person... I am only suggesting that we draw the line somewhere else

I compared toddlers to dogs for a reason: we euthanize dogs every day and most people are perfectly fine with turning a blind eye to it. I believe that if we could instill the same mentality in a baby slaying program then society could benefit as a whole. It's basically natural selection, only regulated by intelligent minds.

>>2037993
I would, I think. It's hard to say how anyone would react in that situation, but again, back to the dogs.

>>2038003
Nazi's had the right idea they just chose who they eradicated for the wrong reasons. Besides, what if instead of killing the Jews they just sterilized them? They could have fixed their population in 50 years without killing anyone. Now imagine instead of Jews they sterilized people with a tendency to produce retarded babies and drug addicts and generally stupid people? Nazi's would be genius' right now; a whole nation of intelligent people.

>>2037998
What if there were certain laws set in place that allowed people to only have children if they meet certain criteria? Certainly a reasonable income, among other things, isn't so much to ask for when contributing a living, thinking being to this world? The most important thing people do for society doesn't require a license or a permit, doesn't require a fee; people will spend money on you if you just sleep around, just to keep your child in relative comfort. It's a fucking joke

Alright /sci/,
I've had this idea for a while in my head. I'm not trolling but hold onto your pants all the same

What if we not only forced abortions onto people who were in no way capable of competently raising a child. Not only this, but I think it's plausible for us to euthanize babies that nobody wants. I know, I know; it's 'murder'. Realistically though, have any of you met a 2 year old with the mental capacity of a dog? There's obviously potential in a baby that isn't in a dog, but where do we draw the line on killing potential? One could truly argue that every time someone doesn't have sex and induce pregnancy, they are killing a potential person. By drawing the line somewhere after birth, we can raise the average quality of life and help ease overpopulation.

tl;dr kill babies