A High-Res 3D Video of the Embryonic Heartbeat 207
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the University of Houston, TX, adapted an imaging technique called optical coherence tomography to capture 3D video of the mammalian heart as it forms. They used the method to image a mouse embryo just 8.5 days past conception and about a day after it starts to form. In the remarkable video a normal heartbeat is visible. Normally optical coherence tomography is used for clinical imaging of the retina. Having such a high-resolution, non-invasive way to image the developing heart could perhaps help doctors treat congenital heart disorders in human babies."
That's VERY impressive. (Score:5, Interesting)
You can get arbitrarily good images of fixed (dead) embryos, but live imaging using any method is damn tough, and live 3D imaging at this resolution is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Motion makes it nearly impossible to do MR or CT 3D imaging. You can gate against the cardiac cycle to image a single animal, but nobody can yet gate against a fetal heartbeat in a mouse. I'm not even sure if that would be enough, because the maternal heartbeat contributes significant motion, too.
One of our doctoral students did a 3D atlas of the embryonic mouse using MR microscopy [duke.edu]. These were fixed specimens, but they're isotropic (the same spatial resolution in all three dimensions), and nobody's come close to matching our resolution as far as I know. Part of her work was looking at cardiac septal defects, which you pretty much have to study in embryos, because they aren't compatible with live birth.
One drawback of OCT is that it fails if you have to go through much tissue. Mice are tiny enough to make this work possible, but I don't think there's any way you could do it in humans, short of inserting a source/detector into the uterus, which kind of spoils the whole "non-invasive" feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and if you've got repeating motion, you can sort of patch together a 4D image (3D over time). Alex's atlas is actually 4D, although the different timepoints were necessarily from different specimens. (And obviously not isotropic on time -- to get a true 4D isotropic dataset, our 19.5 micron/voxel spatial resolution would demand 65-femtosecond temporal resolution, which is (a) physically impossible and (b) of no use to an anatomist.)
Re: (Score:2)
You can get arbitrarily good images of fixed (dead) embryos, but live imaging using any method is damn tough, and live 3D imaging at this resolution is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
Not really. Well, only if you take a very mammal-centric view: chicken [youtube.com] and zebrafish [youtube.com] embryos are extremely easy to image in much, much higher resolution. It's also possible to do live imaging on partially dissected embryonic tissues. I make live slices of chicken embryos and watch subcellular organelles move around under an automated microscope with much better resolution than this study.
Granted, that wouldn't be of any theraputic value in humans, but live imaging is not unprecedented.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a lot creepier than I meant it to be. "Humans" should have also been in bold.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually meant "mouse embryos", since that's what TFA and our lab's work was about. Yes, zebrafish are easier -- in fact, you can get varieties that stay transparent into adulthood [sciencedaily.com], which opens all sorts of possibilities. But there are a lot of things you can do in mouse models that you can't do in fish or whatnot.
I'm sorry to tell you this... (Score:2)
... but this is stereo(-2D), not (volumetric) 3D. Despite the layman definition.
Re: (Score:2)
It is in 3D, the 3th dimension being time.
2D (Score:2)
Should read: Low res grainy 2D video (Score:2)
TFA has a Low res grainy 2D video, and the author readily admits: "Though it looks grainy, this and other video of the developing heart made by the Houston group are some of the best ever taken."
I think, and probably, it is very impressive to make a videothe beating hart of a tiny mouse embryo, even if it is grainy and 2D.
BUT WHERE THE HELL is the H.D. 3D video announced in the headline?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Feel free to steal my sig. It's apropos.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the technology isn't capable of imaging anything too deeply embedded in tissue which is why it worked on a mouse but is unlikely to work in humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they can use an laparoscope or something similar to place the sensors inside the vaginal womb and image though the placenta more directly. If they can't do it now, that's the next logical approach. Anyways, it will likely be used on artificial inseminated eggs first so there wouldn't be any need for a host carrier outside of removing a few eggs to get the anti abortion images.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
But hey, nothing like getting an "insightful" moderation for your off-topic frosty piss, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
There is some evidence [thefreelibrary.com] that ultrasound might disturb brain cells. Of course, they left the ultrasound on the pregnant mouse for half an hour, as I understand it a lot longer than a normal ultrasound session, and it wasn't a profound effect, the brain layers were largely undisturbed. No idea though how much of an effect on brain function that would cause.
I guess this technique uses light instead of sound though? Anyone know what the intensity of the light they're shining in would be? The heart initially
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As evidenced by the overwhelming number of five abortion doctors killed since 1993!
Re: (Score:2)
(No, seriously, I have no idea and am curious.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People do think of that, and these people are wrong. That was the point of my response...
As evidenced by, what, a whopping five abortion-providers killed since 1993? Although each death is one too many, you are still overly concerned with this [anncoulter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think, parents (not "we" — only the parents) should have the life-and-death control over their offspring forever — as was the case in the Roman Empire. ("Parental abuse" may remain wrong, but should not be illegal.)
But my point was different from and not even related to the strawman you knocked down — I do not think, the fellow Americans, who vie
Re:Cool tech. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only real problem(beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads. "Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."
Yes. Showing people biological facts with new technology. How terrible pro-lifers must be.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Showing people biological facts with new technology. How terrible pro-lifers must be.
Anti-abortion ads are pretty short on actual biological facts and long on pathos and shock value. -Some- pro-lifers are terrible because they clearly get off on using facts to make desperate people feel worse about themselves, and feeling self-righteous.
Some, not most. It's easy to get annoyed with a whole movement based on a fringe asshole minority.
Re:Cool tech. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview [medscape.com]
states: Fetal indications for abortion
Re: (Score:2)
have respect for the other side
He has no responsibility to show any respect for people who spend their lives chasing fairy tales.
All human babies (including fetuses)
Can you vouch for every sect of your faith? What about original sin? What ever happened to heathens? You cannot make such all-encompassing claims when there have been literally millions killed throughout history just for not having a "chance to know the truth."
Re: (Score:2)
He has no responsibility to show any respect for people who spend their lives chasing fairy tales.
You're not helping your case for being open-minded, or even right, with statements like that. Neither "side" of this argument has been able to prove their belief beyond a shadow of a doubt, or there wouldn't be billions on each side. Bashing isn't going to do you any good.
Re: (Score:2)
Limbo isn't Hell, in any sense. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is funny that your post is modded as insightful. I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.
This is just a screening process. So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted. It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.
Yes, this is technology that can be used for something some people don't like. That makes it bad.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to use this computer and this internet to hack into a bank and steal someone's life savings, then I'll go to a lab and make a killer virus and clone some serial killers. Then probably come back home and use my stolen money to buy some child porn and upload it with the previously used internet. Then I might take a nap... an EVIL nap.
Re:Cool tech. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see human life as special. This may be because I am human and therefore extremely subjective.
I am sure that when an alien race lands on earth they will be a lot more objective than us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement. A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special. It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform". You can make a new fetus in what? Weeks? And this time a healthy one. One that is more likely to create healthy offspring. Or even offspring at all.
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
There are at least two problems with this line of thinking:
1) It reduces human beings to the level of disposable widgets. While it's true that there's nothing special about the human species on a biological level, actually behaving that way leads to some very dark places.
2) I can't speak for everyone, but I consider my life pretty damn special, and I would take particular, violent exception to anyone who intended to treat it as trivially expendable.
If you want to talk about it on an evolutionary le
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
The problem in the West is not that women can't have babies, it's that they choose not to.
Obviously, in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice, babies appear with more frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. "
It's not arbitrary, it's an consequence of the fact that we're human, and the simple that fact that humans that don't value human life either kill themselves or are psychopaths on which a functioning society cannot be based.
Attributing value to human life is probably the LEAST arbitrary thing in human civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't really tell me why it isn't arbitrary. In fact, by saying (let me paraphrase) "We value human life because we're human" you are basically agreeing that we arbitrarily attribute value to human life because we just happen to be humans.
Let me provide an example. Does a rock consider human life valuable? Well, this is obviously a silly question, because a rock cannot think. And yet, a rock is still subject to all the laws of physics. Because the laws of physics are not arbitrary.
It is a credible argu
Re: (Score:2)
This is a game of definitions. I believe you are misusing the word "arbitrary": I think you are using it where you should more properly be using the word "subjective".
The laws of physics are objective.
The value of human life is subjective.
The definition of the meter is arbitrary.
Society's desire to protect itself is not "arbitrary" - it's a necessity for a long-lasting society, and therefore not arbitrary, based on the the basic human desire for survival (which again is not arbitrary, but a fundamental part
Re: (Score:2)
Evangelical atheist or evangelical Christians. Both are known to exist and I would say the first clearly is worse then the later. At least with evangelical Christians, they believe they are doing you good. With evangelical atheist, they are just trying to troll and be an ass.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot rape... And endangerment of the mother's life. Not every unwanted pregnancy can be prevented nor safely carried to term. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to force a woman to die as a consequence of trying to bring a dangerous pregnancy to term. Nor do I believe that unwan
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot rape... And endangerment of the mother's life. Not every unwanted pregnancy can be prevented nor safely carried to term. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to force a woman to die as a consequence of trying to bring a dangerous pregnancy to term. Nor do I believe that unwanted pregnancies are solely the fault of the mother.
I totally agree with you - however, if you look into the numbers, only a very small percentage of rape victims get pregnant (due to the trauma of the event) and out of those who do, more than half decide to have the baby so that something good can come from it. Also, the number of abortions due to the mother's life being in danger are rather low too. So yes, while I agree that they should have the option of abortion in those cases, using it as a reason for anyone to have an abortion at anytime for any rea
Re: (Score:2)
Some things won't go away just by making them illegal. [cafepress.com] Some women will decide (perhaps against all advice of their family and church) to terminate... and when they do, they need access to safe medical care, not preaching, social damnation, and horrible injuries. If self-inflicted or unlawful medical procedures are all that's available, then that's what these women will use.
Re: (Score:2)
not what I meant... I meant that rape can cause an unwanted pregnancy through no fault of the mother.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. There are some pro-lifers who base their position partly on the idea that an unwanted pregnancy is the result of immoral behavior on the mother's part. It's that level of idiocy that I am opposed to, not the general concept of the pro-life movement.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Statistically, [johnstonsarchive.net] rape is a minority case, so in the vast majority of cases, they are correct. I mean, whether or not the behavior was moral of course can be debated, but the point is it was still the parents' conscious willing decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
it was still the parents' conscious willing decisions.
and of course, either way, not the baby's fault or choice. (my bad, forgot to add that part)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine the conscious willing decision is to have sex. That does not imply that they were consciously willing to get (the girl) pregnant.
Let's say they're even having 'safe sex'. I.e. they make the decision to be on the pill / wear a condom, and thus similarly in the vast majority of cases the decision that they do -not- want to get (the girl) pregnant.
But the effectivity of both combined is still not 100%, so in this hypothetical case the girl does get pregnant.
She had no particular reason to take a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Does this 'oops' somehow constitute a willing decision to get pregnant, despite the above, based merely on the fact that when people decide to have sex with a 100% contraceptive method they 'accept' that tiny percentage chance that they -do- get (the girl) pregnant?
As you pointed out, no contraceptive is 100%, therefore any time you are having sex (with or without contraceptives) you are risking getting pregnant. If you're not ready to deal with the potential negative outcomes of having sex, you shouldn't be having it. So yes, it IS a willing decision - a willing decision to have sex. An abortion because of "oops" is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, then you have no business doing it. It doesn't matter if it's sex, playing the stock market, gambling, racing, skydiving, etc.
Except your "consequences" are wholly artificial because they only exist if a simple medical procedure is actively denied for the sole reason of them 'learning their lesson'.
There is no reason why, in today's world, sex must ever result in an unwanted birth unless people like you i
Re: (Score:2)
The morality of the parents is irrelevant. Whether the father was a rapist or the mother a whore makes no difference to whether abortion is ok.
Admittedly both sides are guilty of resorting to crude moral rhetoric in justifying their positions.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because with all those options to not get pregnant, accidents still happen. I'm not going to even touch the issue of health reasons, rape, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They spoke well of the morning after pill. That does a decent job of dealing with rape (though it doesn't give the woman in question a great deal of time to consider the issue).
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Informative)
Emergency contraception is only 75-89% effective [plannedparenthood.org]. That still leaves a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention all the adverse side-effects that taking a massive dose of hormones can cause.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you think abortion is murder because the fetus has a nervous system, you must consider killing anything else with a nervous system -- including worms and insects -- to be morally equivalent to the killing of a human. Is that a stance you're willing to take, or would you like to adjust your criteria?
Maybe you should find a more compelling reason to call something "murder".
A "nervous system" is utterly irrelevent -- we kill millions of living things with nervous systems daily, and whatever else that may be, we do not consider it to be murder. The hamburger you had for lunch came from an animal that had a nervous system, and one quite a bit more advanced than any week-old fetus anyway.
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human. There is one, and only one thing that humans have that no other animal has. How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Provide evidence that indicates that an unborn child is not human.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Individual rights aren't directly linked to genetics. Otherwise it would be perfectly moral to kill a sapient alien. He's not trying to say fetuses aren't human in a biological sense, but rather that mere human DNA doesn't necessarily confer individual rights.
Again, they're biologically human. But morally, a person who suffers irreversible brain death is no longer sapient, so our laws (correctly) allow families to "pull the plug." This is the most extreme case, of course, and it's common for this position to be used as a strawman position: "Pro-choice means that anyone with an IQ below X should be killed!"
This couldn't be farther from reality. Most people recognize the need for shades of grey. For instance:
People with alzheimers shouldn't be given driver's licenses, nor should they have access to firearms or heavy machinery. Very young children don't have the right to vote or enter contracts. But only a lunatic would say that they have the same rights as a brain-dead vegetable. Shades of grey are necessary.
For a very good reason; dogs don't ever progress past that point. Humans do.
All moral decisions seem arbitrary to me, in the sense that they can't be falsified. But I also arbitrarily think that all sapient beings have the right to life. This includes all humans except for those without the capacity for sapience (e.g. fetuses prior to the development of a "reasonably" complicated brain, and people who have suffered irreversible brain death.) It also includes sapient aliens, genuine artificial intelligences, and possibly cetaceans, cephalapods, and some of the other great apes.
I haven't conclusively figured out where to put the boundaries for individual rights. Anyone who thinks these issues are simple is either naive or a genius on a level I'll never be able to reach. Morality in the real world is messy and arbitrary for everyone who hasn't locked himself into a moral system prescribed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Individual rights. (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't conclusively figured out where to put the boundaries for individual rights. Anyone who thinks these issues are simple is either naive or a genius on a level I'll never be able to reach. Morality in the real world is messy and arbitrary for everyone who hasn't locked himself into a moral system prescribed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Morality hinges on human experience. It is not a mathematical problem, and approaching it as if it were only overcomplicates an otherwise, often simple, pr
Re:Individual rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people are fundamentally herd animals, and fear anyone who's different. This prejudice affects everyone, even the people who wrote those "holy books."
Neither will single people, couples who can't have kids, or couples who choose not to conceive. But they're not all sinners because of their choices (depending on the religion in question and the method of contraception.) Also, homosexuals can have children through surrogates and should certainly be able to adopt children.
Because God creates people with homosexual tendencies (even though He wants us to all have children) just to watch them squirm. If they manage to suppress the desires He gave them, they don't burn for all eternity. Hey, this sounds plausible and reasonable. Where do I sign up?
The first time I met a Christian, it was immediately apparent to me that they were undergoing an epic internal struggle, the least of which concerned their theology. Yet, to them, this condition has persisted for so long it felt "normal" And without the ability to defer judgment to another's experience, they saw no reason to change. Without any understanding that things could be better, they thought of my position as merely trying to take away what little happiness they did posses.
I'm just kidding. I don't really believe that. But it was silly of me to justify a position with such a subjective anecdote, wasn't it? Maybe calling homosexual desires "afflictions" makes you tend to see more of an internal struggle than can be traced back to the fact that gays live in a world that hates and harms them [wikipedia.org] for no good reason?
Maybe it's very clear to you how that conclusion follows from witnessing an unexpected death. And maybe all the atheists in the world just haven't seen anyone die unexpectedly. (I wonder what the odds of this are?)
Or maybe grief affects everyone differently, and doesn't imply anything about any deity.
You simply have to trust them. I prefer to think for myself [dumbscientist.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And maybe all the atheists in the world just haven't seen anyone die unexpectedly. (I wonder what the odds of this are?)
Or maybe grief affects everyone differently, and doesn't imply anything about any deity.
Zero. Watching my dad bleed to death did not make me think "wow, there must be a loving god in heaven, loving us all enough to make us die from horrible diseases. How wrong I have been".
Sorry to be off topic, but thank you for writing that response. Thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.
Absolutely right. However, they do mean that the creature is alive, so the "it's not alive" people lose all ground there. It doesn't matter whether it's a bug, a dog, a fish, or a person, if something has a heartbeat and you cause it to stop, you killed it.
How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?
So you follow the view that the doctor has a magic wand that turns a fetus into a human baby? Dogs reproduce as dogs, trees reproduce as trees, humans reproduce as humans. To claim that a baby isn't human just because it hurts your argument that "it's
Re: (Score:2)
I've just pointed out [slashdot.org] that your position seems to imply that sapient aliens don't have rights. I'm curious, if we ever encounter a sapient alien, would it be immoral to kill it?
Frankly, I'm not expecting a thoughtful response since the rest of your post boils down to "pro-choice people are the same as Nazis!" In fact, it's a perfect example of the strawman
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I am not saying that once that happens, the brain is suddenly filled with knowledge and experience and wisdom. But the physical foundation, and the capacity to learn those things later,
Re: (Score:2)
So, then... if you hit a person in your car, get slapped with involuntary manslaughter or something of the sort, and the coroner finds a little clump of cells 3 days old.. woop: TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter?
Brush up on your embryology (Score:2)
Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother? On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.
Fetal and maternal circulation are independent and separated by the chorion. The ectoderm also gives rise to the epidermis, and nobody thinks that's special. Neurulation begins around day 19 with the formation of the neural plate. It takes months for this to develop into a distinctively human nervous system.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.
Formed within three days? Are you sure? Can you point to the nervous system on this [wikipedia.org] 3 day old human embryo?
You appear to have meant three -weeks-. And not -formed- but -specified-. The neural ectoderm is specified and begins to form the neural tube that will make the brain and spinal cord. It doesn't do it instantly either. There is still brain development after birth in humans. It has definitely not "formed" in three days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first part of your statement means nothing. No one cares if you're a student or a janitor. The second part is a moral belief of yours. Not all share _your_ morals beliefs. End of story.
We're onto a new path now... (Score:2, Interesting)
And yes, for the anti-abortion readers
Oh, the great irony of politics is that Darwin is firmly on the right wing side. In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes. A quick spin of the globe shows that religious societies are the ones producing the most children - and secular societies the least. You can condemn Islam's male domination, or the quaint traditions of American Christianity,
Re: (Score:2)
But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution
What, you think other cultures just fell from the sky one day?
You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution. The beliefs you're promoting were the default for centuries; the ones you're denigrating evolved from your beliefs, because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.
Re: (Score:2)
You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution.
Hmm, I'm really not. The two go hand in hand and you have to see that cultural and physical evolution ultimately go hand in hand. If anything, the biggest values that a kid can get come from the family.
because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.
Except that, this is not true. The USA experienced a huge surge in population and really only ran into fiscal problems when our population grow
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that, this is not true. The USA experienced a huge surge in population and really only ran into fiscal problems when our population growth rate dropped.
We experienced a surge in population because of a surge in wealth. Having kids you can't afford is a bad idea.
Old people are expensive to take care of, and the cheapest way to do that is have loads of kids so as to share the costs.
Loads of kids growing up in broken homes with inadequate attention, education, and nutrition aren't going to be supporting anyone. They're more likely to be stripping and robbing convenience stores. Don't ignore quality of life in favor of quantity.
BTW, whatever happened to planning for your own retirement? Raising a child costs $125,000 to $250,000. That could go a long way if you invested it inste
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First of all, if it wasn't for strippers, quite a lot of nerds wouldn't get close to a real life naked woman.
Or do you mean that they strip down, run in and rob convenience stores? That'd be awesome ...
"Give me the money, or I'll do the helicopter!"
Re: (Score:2)
We experienced a surge in population because of a surge in wealth. Having kids you can't afford is a bad idea.
Put the kids to work for you, kill two birds with one stone.
Loads of kids growing up in broken homes with inadequate attention, education, and nutrition aren't going to be supporting anyone
Today's bottom tier Americans are richer, in terms of energy per capita, transportation, heat, shelter, and clothing, than all but the richest people of 200 years ago. How much wealth do you need?
BTW, whatever ha
Re: (Score:2)
Today's bottom tier Americans are richer, in terms of energy per capita, transportation, heat, shelter, and clothing, than all but the richest people of 200 years ago. How much wealth do you need?
That's a very simplistic way to look at it. Being able to provide for kids isn't just about staving off starvation and hypothermia. It's also about having free time to spend with them; skills and knowledge to pass on; enough comfort and security that you aren't constantly stressing out or fighting in front of them; etc. Buying a car or a flat screen doesn't turn a bad home into a good home.
Invest in what? Overall, economically, national economic growth is tied to hmmm, population growth.
Again, that's a very simplistic way of looking at it. Our GDP is 425% of China's, yet we have only 23% of their populat
Re: (Score:2)
This is an odd stance for a conservative to take. Why don't you think people should be supporting themselves by planning ahead? Why is it up to the rest of us to crank out enough kids at our expense to support you in your old age?
I'm just being factual. It costs way too much money to live as an old person. It simply does. I mean, the last year of a person's life can run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and other bills. Nursing homes are expensive. People simply cannot pay for themselves wh
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the world sir. The richest countries in the world also tend to have the lowest birth rates. That is not a coincidence. Fewer children to raise means more resources devoted to more productive uses such as taking care of the few children they already have or starting a business or a multitude of other things you did not consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the world sir. The richest countries in the world also tend to have the lowest birth rates
No, the richest countries in the world are that way because the west has abundant natural resources, a rich tradition of the rule of law, and other things. The poorest countries of the world, particularly Africa, are screwed up not because of their birth rate, but because, the west's interaction with africa, slavery, countless civil wars and coups, have made the rule of law of joke. The idea of the thi
Re: (Score:2)
You're focusing on genetic evolution but ignoring memetic evolution. The beliefs you're promoting were the default for centuries; the ones you're denigrating evolved from your beliefs, because people saw how much squalor and human suffering comes from crapping out kids willy-nilly.
My name is Charles Darwin, and I want you to know that I said that natural selection does not necessarily favor those who are the strongest or the smartest ( or for that matter, those who avoid squalor and suffering ). It favors
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes.
Survival of the fittest is about adaptation, not about who can have the most babies. When resources start to run out it is the species that is ready to change and adapt that wins out. I don't think anyone will disagree with me when I say religions aren't exactly proponents of change.
So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it. If we can then privati[s]e schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it.
Privatising schools won't do much to shield children from alternate viewpoints in the age of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes.
Survival of the fittest is about adaptation, not about who can have the most babies. When resources start to run out it is the species that is ready to change and adapt that wins out. I don't think anyone will disagree with me when I say religions aren't exactly proponents of change.
You're correct that evolution is about adaptation, but birth rates are closely linked to that. Traits only get passed on if they survive, and the more offspring you have with a given trait, the more likely it is that that trait will survive. In addition, the more offspring you have, the more likely one of them will have a significant mutation (just because of probabilities), and it's these genetic mutations that fuel evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the entire world of genetics will turn itself upside down in the next 30-100 years as we gain the ability to understand genes and modify them at will, so we'll at most have 2 more generations where that sort of thing matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the entire world of genetics will turn itself upside down in the next 30-100 years as we gain the ability to understand genes and modify them at will, so we'll at most have 2 more generations where that sort of thing matters
I would bet too, that conservatives would be quicker to adopt this technology. Americans are just weird that way.
Re: (Score:2)
But their children grow up to hate their parents and become either secular libertines or suicide bombers.
I'm telling you, we should all just get along to go along and start going to megachurches, since their ownership of the world is inevitable.
However, it's interesting that in such a devoutly "Christian" country like the USA, a majority of the population favors legal abortions (though regulated). Less than 35 percent believe that abortion should
Re: (Score:2)
However, it's interesting that in such a devoutly "Christian" country like the USA, a majority of the population favors legal abortions (though regulated)
I think the national consensus is before the 1st trimester, its ok. All the 3d ultrasound makes later terms than that, when it actually looks like a baby, to be different.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be much harder to do, than to simply have children... Your opponents have recognized this attack vector long ago — and spared no effort to entrench themselves at the "public" education front. (Their strong positions in popular culture is, likely, natural — having fewer children leads one more time to pursue other interests.)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not meant to discourage you — while this recent immigrant finds both of the main sides of America's culture-wars unpleasant, I'd rather the conservatives win — but to point out, that taking back the schools and the popular culture should be the primary target, rather than a mere afterthought.
First off, welcome to America. The biggest problem with conservatism is that it does not recognize it is a world wide movement the same way the left recognizes it does. Conservative writers have pi
Re: (Score:2)
You joke but I've got relatives who believe exactly that. The sad part is, they're not uncommon... JUst crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
They better have some quick hands because I've got some sharp-ass incisors.
Re: (Score:2)
The Indians will distract you by staging an elaborately choreographed musical number, allowing the Chinese to sneak in and use their ninjitsu powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Your observation does not reflect anyones desire, only the will forced upon them by their government
I don't buy that at all, and our collective national experience in our two wars is our best evidence. The fact is, and we're learning this in the countries that we invade, is that the policies you describe actually have a large measure of POPULAR support. If Democracy cannot be imposed by a barrel of a gun, as liberals are fond of saying, than I would argue nothing else can, either.
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't stop you "Center-Right" types from trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they happen to have been born on the other side of some border, or believe differently, or act differently, or look differently, or happen to have oil under their ground.
Then, all bets are off.
But a dividing cell a few hours old must be granted full human rights, at least until they get old enough to go to school. They're not so cute when they get to the age where you have to feed them, or educate them, or take care of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What good is having religious beliefs if you can't force them on other people?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't speak for everyone, so I'll just speak for myself. I'm a Christian. I'm pro-life. My religious beliefs give me guidance as to how I am supposed to live my own life. Because of my religious beliefs, I take my vacation days and volunteer to help feed homeless people in poorer areas where I live. I personally have walked around public areas and helped pick up trash. I lend my listening ear to my friends who are going through difficult times. I encourage my female friends to respect themselves and not b
six micrometer is pretty high resolution for this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)