/sci/ - Science & Math

> Would /sci/ NOT conduct crimes against humanity for the sake of science?
Fixed.

Probably not. Really hurts your funding, you know? Have to take the human part into account.

Pumped with fluid, inside your brain
Pressure in your skull begins pushing through your eyes
Burning flesh, drips away
Test of heat burns your skin, your mind starts to boil
Frigid cold, cracks your limbs
How long can you last
In this frozen water burial?
Sewn together, joining heads
Just a matter of time
'Til you rip yourselves apart

Define "humanity" and define "crimes against".

>implying that it is required to conduct crimes against humanity for the sake of science

>>969401

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

>>969417
That was just torture. They didn't really LEARN much, what little they learned was just a by-product.

I would consider doing similar things to particular inmates/criminals, though, but would do it in a much more efficient way to maximize learning potential.

anyone got that weird japanese fan-art of josef mengele?

We learned more about people from the holocaust than any other faux science.

use death row inmates to test effects of vacuum on humans

>>969435
>>969435
i read that alot of useful research that was later used in medicine came from those studies.

>implying I wouldn't commit crimes against humanity with no incentive

I'd kill X people if it let me learn something that could save the lives of X+n people, where n is greater than zero. I don't care if that makes me a murderer, its the moral thing to do.

yeah I probably would

human life will be meaningless once the singularity hits anyway

>>969390
Slayer in my /sci/ ?

Morality is irrelevant to science. It should always be assumed that the pursuit of knowledge is more important than any amount of life, even yours. As long as there is a next generation to inherit the knowledge, it doesn't even have to be human, it's okay in my book.

>>969667
reread what you've just wrote
proceed to hit yourself with a brick

>>969677
Lol, moralfag can't stand someone else's opinion.

>>969667
Wouldn't wanton destruction of life lead the public to distrust and not support the sciences? Science will be dead in a generation if kids are scared away from it.

>>969688
>It should always be assumed that the pursuit of knowledge is more important than any amount of life, even yours
So would you kill yourself in the name of science?

The photo posted by OP is that of some notorious German doctor who did some sick shit during holocaust. Remember reading about him on Wikipedia. Interesting stuff.

>>969700
Not the samefag, but if you WOULDN'T kill yourself to advance science, you're a dipshit that doesn't understand the value of knowledge or the value of human life.
6+ billion people. Yeah. I think there's a surplus.

>>969700
Me? Fuck no. I'm not a scientist. That's more of a normative statement.

>>969696
Yeah, unless you teach them different values. It's all sociologically related.

What you two don't get is that ethics is a very iffy field. It's so opinionated that it has no place in a /sci/ thread at all, really.

Vivisections were also performed on pregnant women, sometimes impregnated by doctors, and the fetus removed.[16] Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss.[11] Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body.[11] Some prisoners' limbs were frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen then thawed to study the effects of the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.

I'd dissect a na'vi Mengele style.

>>969339
I dunno.
Are we considering creationists human for purposes of this experiment?

>>969762
Ironically enough, no. They're the only ones without souls.

Well frankly I'm agaisnt stem cell research
I mean I guess if somebody's going to have an abortion its part of life or whatever, but I don't we should make dead baby factories to make tissue

>>969794
4/10

>>969794

Why are you on /sci/? Go away.

>>969877
Well I can't be the only one here who thinks using human embryos is a bad thing

>>969914

The baby's already fucking dead, might as well make it useful. No reason not to, except moralfags think it's wrong yet those are the same people who go like "WHY HAVEN"T WE CURED CANCER YET STUPID FUCKING SCIENTISTS!"

>>969999
Agreed.

>>969914
Annnnnd no, you're not.

I hope so.

>>969999
We have cured cancer, mr. quadruples.

It's just that it's more profitable to treat cancer and not cure it. The cure will never see the light of day.

You can go ahead and claim I'm crazy, but it's true. Too much money is to be had treating "uncurable" diseases. I wouldn't be surprised if tens if not hundreds of people have been assassinated to keep it quiet.

>>970115

/x/ is that way...

Would /derp/ conduct crimes against humanity for the sake of islam?

>>970115
source?

I wouldn't kill myself for the sake of science since I wouldn't be consciously exist anymore to appreciate my efforts

>>970115
GTFO

Yes absolutely if I had the chance to secretly conduct human experimentation on unconsenting criminals I would do it with no problem. Sacraficing a few deadbeats for the greater good seems like a good deal to me.

>>970115

>>971574

What if they are falsely accused by a flaw in the justice system and are killed as a result?

Who wouldn't.

>>971595
We should just use all creationists who think they contribute to science. This will be the only contribution they will ever make.

>>971620

This ftw

>>971620

Then again, a faggot that thinks religion is the enemy of science appears.

>>971659

HURR

Unit 731 level stuff, hell no.

But using incurable sex criminals and death row criminals as medical experimentees, sure, so long as they are euthanized afterward.

no
the rights of the humans outweigh any scientific benefit you could possibly get

>>969999

sweet quads bra.
also don't mind me. >>999999

Without shadow of a doubt.

Just scrap 'death row' and do experiments on them instead. Kill them anyway if the experiment goes to plan.

>>971791

Although, now I think about it, I imagine it would be interesting to study the actions of a 'superhuman' rapist or serial killer.

Perhaps I wouldn't kill a few, merely tag them and release them back in to society.

Animals? Yes. Humans? No. For the sake of human survival? Probably.

>>971595 Only convicts with substantial evidence are subjected to testing. But then all trials would have to actually be fair for that to work.
>>971659 historically it always is.

>>971791
>implying that's not cruel and unusual punishment
>implying that the death penalty is not BULLSHIT!

who's this humanity? sounds like he deserves to die for the benefit of science.

Now I dont think you should conduct experiments on sentient beings, but if some deranged mad man happens to kill billions of people only to find the meaning of life/immortality etc, I wouldn't be so self righteous as to throw away the data.

case in point: Dr. Noonien Soong kept getting all the research he conducted in prison disintegrated, I remember clearly when he pointed at the one paper where he shows how to give people the ability to see different spectrums.. fuken self righteous moral bastards! those people died in vain

>>971810

You think I give a fuck about your medievalisms?

I'd also close down the euthanisation clinics and experiment on those who wish to die.

>>971736

What if you have to violate the rights of a few to save the many?

If it's for the sake of science it's probably FOR humanity, they're just too individualistic to realise it.

>>971736
What if enough penecilin to last 100 people 100 years had to come at the expense of 1 baby?

>>971843
Not the one you're replying to but
>greater good and all that jazz.

I'm ok with it.

>>971863

What if the rate of babies being born fell below the rate of people dying annually?

>>971864

Who defines this greater good, and who gave them the power to do so?

>>971892
What if it didn't.

>>971894
Mathmatics. See >>971863

>>971892
Artificial insemination, forced if needs be.

>>971910

Overpopulation.

>>971911

In a perfect world, yes.

>>971918

How do you think artificial insemination works? If theres a massive drop in the birthrate it will be in the aftermath of biological warfare.

>>971843
then the many are screwed
you could make that argument about way too many things
if someone volunteers however...
>>971834
what if they experimented on you
instead of doing all those great things you wanted to do in life you end up just a control in an experiment that ultimately won't help that many people

WHY HAVEN'T YOU CURED CANCER YET STUPID FUCKING SCIENTISTS!

>>971921
GM crops disappear? Isnt the argument of the anti-gm crowd that these GM crops will outbreed their non-modified siblings?

>>971934

>>971969

What? No. GM crops are designed to be mostly infertile so farmers need to go back to Monsanto and buy new seeds.

>>972019
why is monsanto suing farmers with 2nd gen GM crops on their land for theft/breech of contract/etc?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us42DZO0NX0

and i hate linking to greenpeace crap

>>972019
lolflawed product, contract is invalid.

>>972036

Because they're greedy.

>>972114
congrats, you missed the point.

>>972117

I sure did, what an idiot. You should explain it to me.

>>972036

Because Monsanto has the resources to keep a legal case/cases locked in appeals processes and court hearings until the other guy has no money left to fight the case with. You can't possibly be surprised that corporations do this, it's basically a prerequisite to get on the S&P 500.

>>969560
I always thought if I was an astronaut and I grow old, I would let myself die in space FOR SCIENCE!!

SCIENCE!!!!!

>>969339
Of course we would.

We're all fucking insane.

I am a human
I am different than an animal because i have morals

>>972381

Plenty of humans have no morals, and plenty of animals have more morals than you.

>>972381
There are animals that kill there mothers, and practice cannibalism.

Some Lions foster gazelle's that have lost their mother, and refuse to eat anything until the gazelle is safe with its herd.

Morals transcend species.