World's First Baby Born With New '3 Parent' Technique (newscientist.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's First Baby Born With New '3 Parent' Technique (newscientist.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @06:10AM from the wonders-of-science dept.

A five-month-old baby boy has been revealed as the first kid in the world with three biological parents, reports New Scientist. The baby boy was apparently conceived by a technique that has been legally approved in the UK, and lets parents with genetic disorders have healthy babies. Though, the method used in this particular cases was slightly different from one legalized in the UK. From the report: Zhang (a doctor) took a different approach, called spindle nuclear transfer. He removed the nucleus from one of the mother's eggs and inserted it into a donor egg that had had its own nucleus removed. The resulting egg -- with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor -- was then fertilised with the father's sperm. Zhang's team used this approach to create five embryos, only one of which developed normally. This embryo was implanted in the mother and the child was born nine months later. "It's exciting news," says Bert Smeets at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. The team will describe the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's Scientific Congress in Salt Lake City in October.

203 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

and how many thousands from the old method? by swschrad · 2016-09-27 06:18 · Score: 1

"More research is needed to determine the extent of the reaction." (tm) (c) all academia

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Zhang (a doctor) by lbmouse · 2016-09-27 06:19 · Score: 1

Are you sure Zhang isn't an auto mechanic?
1. Re:Zhang (a doctor) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's to specify that he is a practising doctor as opposed to a scientist/professor.
Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

>> "It's exciting news," says Bert Smeets
I REALLY don't get how making more humans (even wierd hybrids) is meant to be somehow self-evidently always a good thing.
1. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 06:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Particularly when it leads to definitional collapse leaving people with (or making them realize they always had) the question of what specifically justifies for them and their particular DNA pattern the specially-treated category of "human".
  I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".
  Your mileage, and your logically-unavoidable results, may vary.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
2. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  > I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".
  Which is what exactly? I mean there is no proof that it even exists, let alone a good definition of exactly what it is.
3. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Only two groups of people think about their mitochondria DNA.
  1) scientists studying mitochondria
  2) people with malfunctioning mitochondria
  There is no failure of definition here, the DNA that defines human form and function is entirely the merge of a half set from the father and a half set from the mother. Just as through a natural conception. In theory, it should be possible to extract mitochondria from the father and implant those into an egg cell to maintain even more familial connection, but such a process would be more difficult as clearing out the faulty mitochondria would involve more and smaller targets than replacing a nucleus.
4. Re:Call me strange but... by Dog-Cow · 2016-09-27 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I REALLY don't get how you found a dictionary that defines exciting as good.
5. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's exciting because they were able to replace the mother's defective mitochondrial DNA so that the baby was still their biological child but without a fatal hereditary neurological disease, not because human_population++
6. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Dont forget those who want to be strong with the Force.
7. Re: Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't you hear? The earth is dangerously unpopulated. Why there's still some food, fuel and land left!
8. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  >> NDE studies quantifying direct eye-witness (i.e. themselves) experience of the soul,
  Oh studies "quantifying" direct eye witness accounts? It totally MUST be legit then!
  For someone with apparently not the first clue of scientific rigour, you have a very ill-suited username.
9. Re:Call me strange but... by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-27 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".
  I've got soul. And I'm super-bad.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  The positive note was self-evident in the article.
11. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Bring lots of friends to the Disco Inferno, then.
  Preferably ones I'd be interested in. You can stay behind.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
12. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  As I was thinking about people thinking about mitochondrial DNA, and now am thinking about you thinking about me thinking about people thinking about mitochondrial DNA, you can continue to refer to me as Anonymous Coward.
13. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Can you define what a "soul" is?
  What secular philosophy has determined that a soul is different than a completely irrational alternate stance on metaphysics?
14. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Metaphysics and Philosophy are not science.
15. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  Metaphysics and philosophy determine what science is.
  And you have it wrong.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
16. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  AC... suitably... arbitrary.
  Seems it comes down to who gets to choose in the end.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
17. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  There are already too many people in the world. We don't need to be inventing new ways to create more.
18. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  > Metaphysics and philosophy determine what science is
  Bullshit.
  Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.
19. Re:Call me strange but... by The-Ixian · 2016-09-27 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, because you got here and get to experience the world so who cares about anyone else, right?
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
20. Re: Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  Was that vague bullshit supposed to convey any meaning or were you just trying to sound mystical without actually expending any real effort into holding a defendable position?
21. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 07:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And that, as a matter of historical fact, came from philosophy.
  Odd that your implicit assertion would be that it came suddenly from nowhere.
  But if we're going to play dictionary games, here's Merriam-Webster:
  noun sci-ence
  Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
  Simple Definition of science
  : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
  : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
  : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
  Does this scope specifically and only to the specific form-hypothesis-test-repeat steps (choose your alternate permutation of steps of which you claim there in only one standard) referred to as scientific method? No.
  But then, no need for that. Such scoping is irrational and would immediately destroy science, if strong but untestable inference from established tested knowns is excluded.
  Or, you can throw away, for one, most of Quantum Physics, particularly the core Interpretations, i.e. Copenhagen, Everett, etc., etc.
  This physics is not science? Do you want more examples?
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
22. Re: Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I have nothing to defend.
  The line of the thread is clear, I thought. What categorization of yourself is available based on material inference from your DNA, such as, say, how anyone should consider you required to be treated in any way other than any other categorization of a pattern of DNA?
  Just say what you are, and justify that with reference to your DNA, if that's what you acknowledge you have available to reference, as the material origin of what you are. Particularly, by way of inquiry, which nucleotides provide you with "rights" in contrast to other hominids. Just the sequence and causal steps to generating your organism's rights would be fine.
  If you don't have any reason to think you having them is something real, that is an acceptable answer, as well. Just say so.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
23. Re: Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not only did you miss the point, you REALLY missed the point.
  Mitochondria are the symbiot metabolizers in human cells (and lots of other places). They have distinct cellular components, reproduction cycle, and DNA. That DNA does not interact with the host-cell's DNA.
  This process consisted of replacing the donor egg's nucleus with the nucleus of an egg from the mother, then bathing the egg in sperm from the father. The human encoding DNA is purely that of the mother and father, the mitochondria are those of the donor.
  If you do not comprehend how this fails to destroy any accepted definitions of humanity, please return to elementary biology class and take a seat in the back row.
24. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  Can you define what "consciousness" is?
  Not with any more precision than I can "soul", but neither of us doubts it exists.
  Notably, that it doesn't exist is one of the required "stances" , which end up being rather overtly indefensible, as an alternative way to rationalize the dilemma posed by the Mind-Body Problem.
  If you want to delve into the question deeper here, googling "Mind-Body Problem" or "Cartesian Dualism" will provide you with all the background information on historical vetting of this issue you could want.
  For a summary, I'd recommend:
  http://www.owl232.net/mind.htm
  Written by, incidentally, if you suspect me of bias, a current professor of philosophy and stated atheist (see top level URL).
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
25. Re: Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, let's be clear. -You- replied to -my- broad high-level statement of logical implications of manipulating genetic processes in a general sense, for which my post was expanding on an even more broadly-stated parent post.
  I do not know why you didn't post your as a reply to the originating article summary--that makes a lot more sense than to my particular post, for which it is an irrelevant focusing on a particular technique, and skipping my comment entirely, apparently with an air of "I know a lot about a subset of the science, so I'll go ahead and talk about that and not address your post as a supposed way of addressing it".
  Whatever you think we are arguing about and you are contributing to specifically, we aren't.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
26. Re:Call me strange but... by s122604 · 2016-09-27 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  From a science standpoint its amazing stuff, but when there are so many unwanted children out there, it kind of makes you go.. huh... I had a boss that spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fertility treatments for his wife so that they could conceive, again.. huh..
  
  Of course, I had two children with my wife, when we were both over 35 without really trying, so the genetic imperative wasn't really an issue for me. I'd like to think I would be just as fulfilled with adopted kids, or no kids, but I can't be my own control group.
27. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well TBH the summary omits the most major point of the thing. Which is the REASON WHY!
  Here, dear readers, is the reason why they did it:
  - The mom had been pregnant with about five other kids before. They all died early, before three years of age.
  - She has a condition that all her past babies are guaranteed to be born with, and remember they will all die early.
  - So that gene was removed from her eggs and replaced with a stable gene from another.
  - She gives birth to a disease free child.
  That's why it's "good news" to her and the doctors. Any exaggerative thoughts about super-babies, etc is just worrysome fodder.
  TL;DR? read the article.
28. Re: Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Look, I know you're in philosophy 204 and think that this kind of argumentation makes you sound smart. It doesn't, you'll learn that in 301. You sound like the anti-GMO crowd, but even more ignorant. This is not DNA tampering. The general discussion of genetic manipulation is worthless in this discussion, because it has nothing to do with this story.
  Wait for a story about replacing a faulty chromosome and then return with your attempt to move goalposts, because then you'll at least be in the right stadium. You'll still be wrong, but at least you'll be close enough to the subject matter that it takes longer to recognize.
  Unless you're just here to play a fun round of Forum: The Trolling, in which case you've done a remarkable job and your GM should award you full credit.
29. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe if you weren't a nihilistic cherrypicking selfhating misanthropic sociopath, you'd get why people are, in the general case, good. Don't project your own scrambled internals onto others.
30. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  > And that, as a matter of historical fact, came from philosophy.
  Yes it has its roots there but Philosophy doesn't determine whats science or not.
  > This physics is not science?
  You need to stop muddling the process and the result. As long as the process you're following can lead to a formally provable result then its fair to say its science. Until it has produced a formally provable result then all you've got are just a bunch of hypotheses. Studies such as philosophy, metpshysics, psychology etc dont even attempt to follow a truly rigorous scientific method. I anticipate and agree with your argument that they often can't just by the nature of the subject, but that doesn't give them a free pass to call themselves a science either, no matter how much those who study them would like it to be.
31. Re: Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  So, editing the irrelevancies, your point to all this is to say that this particular medical/scientific process does not lead, in your mind, to the definitional questions of "what does 'human' mean exactly" posed by genetic manipulation in general (as also widely noted and discussed by others), that my actual post was addressing.
  Noted.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
32. Re:Call me strange but... by Wulf2k · 2016-09-27 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  How many of those children are unwanted because they possess diseases/issues that could be solved by different mitochondrial DNA?
33. Re:Call me strange but... by MightyMartian · 2016-09-27 08:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, there are no such studies. There are studies confirming that a drop in oxygen levels to the brain, often concurrent with someone about to die, will lead to some pretty wild hallucinations, but what you wrote is just pure bullshit. There is nothing to indicate in any research that the mind is anything more than the sum of actions of several different parts of the brain.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
34. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Science is not "provable". It is an empirical discipline and will never have the undeniablility of math. 1+1=2 is absolutely true (by the standard axioms, using the standard notation, and base ten), but I could find evidence that the universe doesn't actually exist. You do, on some level, have to accept on faith that the devil isn't keeping your brain in a vat, tricking you into finding all this science stuff.
  
  You really should have known this. We've been discussing skepticism since the 1600's.
35. Re:Call me strange but... by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-27 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Preferably ones I'd be interested in. You can stay behind.
  To know me is to love me.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
36. Re:Call me strange but... by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-27 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because the making is done in countries where the population is shrinking or can barely be hold constant by immigration.
  OTOH the planet easily can hold 3 - 5 times the population. Get out from under your rock, we are not n the 1970s anymore ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
37. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  > Get out from under your rock, we are not n the 1970s anymore ...
  Wow what a dick you are.
38. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, no, you are muddling the issues here.
  First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.
  Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".
  And both were false.
  As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.
  You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.
  Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.
  Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.
  Fix your understanding anyway.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
39. Re:Call me strange but... by Hognoxious · 2016-09-27 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm in the same boat. It's hard to be humble, but I'm doing the best that I can.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
40. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  > You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy
  I absolutely do, and your quite correct point is exactly why metaphysics is NOT a science.
41. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Even that you get wrong.
  Science is what philosophy says it is, and the correct branch it's under is epistemology.
  Repeat your circular, coming-from-nowhere, demonstrated-wrong scoping and definition, though.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
42. Re:Call me strange but... by reboot246 · 2016-09-27 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Don't they know there's a way to create babies that is a whole lot more fun and it has worked for hundreds of thousands of years?
  
  If the parents cannot physically have children, then I suggest adoption. There are always more children awaiting adoption than parents willing to adopt them.
43. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  > Science is what philosophy says it is,
  Again, bullshit.
44. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  I suppose that is your best effort yet at an argument.
  Check history. Alternately, go tell some QM physicists that they don't do science.
45. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".
  I'm a little confused: could you define your terms? Is this soul physical "stuff" (that is, influenced by interactions with other physical stuff and influencing them in return) or some sort of superfluous, hand-wavey "seat of consciousness" that just sits there, powerless, watching the world go by? Do all critters get one, and if not what are the entry requirements (size? Species? What about single-cell organisms, or amoebas?). What about complex systems of multiple organisms working as a loosely-connected block (like an anthill, or the human gut) - one soul, many individual souls, or a combination of individual souls and some sort of meta soul? And has any of this been scientifically verified?
  Enquiring minds need to know.
46. Re:Call me strange but... by MachineShedFred · 2016-09-27 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  The ultimate metaphor for a Slashdot discussion of many debatable science findings:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
47. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world."
  - Percy Bysshe Shelley
  there's a reason they're unacknowledged.
48. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Lie on.
  
  And keep lying.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
49. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Full unpaywalled text
  
  "Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE"
  
  So, we have 4 PhD's and MD's, peer-reviewed, and published in likely the most authoritative medical journal in the world, showing "hallucinations" that just happen to correspond specifically to the predictions of the theological model, along with perceptions of events expected to be unperceivable by the unconscious person, from a fully-experienced sense of complete personhood from a vantage point outside of their physical body.
  
  Versus... MightyMartian and his wholly unbacked and unqualified mere characterizations.
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
50. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In some developed countries, in any given year, there may be no children awaiting adoption at all.
  I live in one of those countries. Here, it's quite okay to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, or it's quite okay to be a single parent, so babies are rarely (if ever) abandoned or put up for adoption. It's pretty rare for both parents to die leaving orphans, too, and in those very rare cases, the child's grandparents are usually able to adopt the child immediately.
  This leaves thousands of childless couples just as unable to adopt as they are unable to conceive children naturally. And no, they can't legally adopt children from other countries, without moving to those countries first.
  Got any other clever 19th-century solutions for 21st-century problems?
51. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  dmt
52. Re:Call me strange but... by Empiric · 2016-09-27 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  that just happen to correspond specifically to the predictions of the theological model
  
  --
  ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
53. Re:Call me strange but... by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-27 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you are mixing up soul with spirit.
  Something like a Spirit, Chi/Ki etc. we all have. But a soul ... that we only will know when we die, or perhaps not even then as when we might be reincarnated our spirit has completely forgotten his past ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
54. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  World population is not actually a problem yet. Certainly we have economic, social and political problems that result in people starving. But the human race is capable of housing and feeding every single person on Earth, we simply have chosen not to do so. (humans are pricks)
  When world population is an issue, expect nations to enforce population control measures. With economic sanctions and possibly overthrow of national governments and establishment of a single world government. The US is likely to be the last country to put population controls or interfere with the reproductive rights of individuals, this will likely lead to EU and other nations sanctioning the US.
55. Re:Call me strange but... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2016-09-28 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how is any evidence accepted by science NOT covered by the description of "studies quantifying direct eye witness accounts"?
  Data recorded of a chemical reaction in a lab is a direct eye witness account.
  Conclusions from that data are studies quantifying direct eye witness accounts.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
56. Re:Call me strange but... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2016-09-28 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  To be exact, Science is a subset of Philosophy and Metaphysics.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
57. Re:Call me strange but... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2016-09-28 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  And is thus a Philosophy.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
58. Re:Call me strange but... by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-28 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the Dick is you or the parent of me, your choice.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
59. Re:Call me strange but... by david_thornley · 2016-09-28 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Experimental psychology is a legitimate science. There's been a lot of non-scientific psychology, but there's been good experiments and statistical analysis of results for a long time now.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
60. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-28 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Are you like 12 years old or something?
61. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-28 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to know how you can make that claim since most of Psychology is based on comparing a control group with an experimental group, and if there is 5% or more difference then your hypothesis assumed to be correct.
  Firstly 5% is just flat out arbitrary.
  Secondly, in all the Psychology experiments I've ever seen anyway, there are nearly always other equally credible reasons/explanations for the cause of the observed difference, yet these are always conveniently ignored.
62. Re:Call me strange but... by david_thornley · 2016-09-28 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the Luminiferous Aether or the Steady State theory were considered proven. Both had puzzling aspects, and the Luminiferous Aether was the best explanation they had. I'm not even sure what is meant by "scientifically proven".
  I do know something about the philosophy of science. Science is a process of falsification. Something isn't science if it isn't falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, science really has nothing to say about it. QM is science. The many-worlds interpretation isn't. Unless and until someone comes up with a way to falsify QM interpretations, science isn't going to work on them.
  Science does favor a certain sort of metaphysics, which is basically physics without the "meta". It's possible to have other metaphysics as a scientist, shown by the fact that many scientists are religious, but they keep their extra metaphysics out of their work.
  Philosophy does include logic, which is mathematically rigorous. The other branches you list are not rigorous. Ethics could be rigorous if we could agree on what it should be based on, which we can't. I have no idea what a rigorous theory of aesthetics or politics could be.
  I don't know about anyone else, but my whole reason for excluding untestable QM "science" as science is because the scientific method is completely inapplicable. It has nothing to do with my, or anyone else's, religious beliefs or lack of same.
  My understanding is of course incomplete, but it's pretty sound in some places.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
63. Re:Call me strange but... by david_thornley · 2016-09-28 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's how science got started. Currently, it's its own thing, and philosophy has been largely redefined. There is a philosophy of science, but the practice of science is not normally considered the practice of philosophy, and the scientific method is largely absent from most modern philosophy.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
64. Re:Call me strange but... by david_thornley · 2016-09-28 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  The Mind-Body problem is very likely an illusion. There's no problem with the idea that the mind is a function of the body, particularly since we've gotten to know something of the incredible complexity of the brain, and seen what software on computer hardware can do. The soul would then be no different form the mind, and it would end at physical death.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
65. Re:Call me strange but... by david_thornley · 2016-09-28 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE"
  
  Putting that quote into context, what it means is that they could not predict who would have an NDE based on medical factors. It's the first sentence of the "Discussion" section, and the rest of the paragraph makes it clear what is meant. It does not mean that NDEs are inexplicable by medical factors, although it does cite some puzzling events (such as apparent knowledge of what was around the patient when the patient had a flat EEG).
  I could not find any reference to any theological model in either of the cited article. The New Scientist one wasn't impressive; for example, it said that all patients could be expected to have NDE, with no support.
  In other words, you're making up that crap about some hypothetical "theological model". There are tons of theological models, and while they generally have some common elements they vary wildly in other ways. The personality changes, if they exist (I wasn't keen on the methodology there, which was primarily self-reporting) can happen with things like heart attacks, and I haven't heard anyone waxing eloquent about the religious and/or metaphysical nature of heart attacks.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
66. Re:Call me strange but... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2016-09-28 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Claims that it is it's own thing, disregards the concept of what a Philosophy *is*.
  The scientific method is a philosophical argument in and of itself. All axioms are. Thus, because the scientific method is a philosophical argument, science is a philosophy.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
67. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-28 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Remind me again why society thinks everyone who wants a child MUST get one? ...or why they couldn't have adopted?
68. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-28 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Philosophy explicitly can't be proved by scientific method. That's exactly why its philosophy and not science.
69. Re:Call me strange but... by JustNiz · 2016-09-28 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  > You do, on some level, have to accept on faith that the devil isn't keeping your brain in a vat, tricking you into finding all this science stuff.
  No I don't because faith isn't science. I accept that science hasn't proven all things, but I certainly don't need to fill that vacuum with faith.
70. Re:Call me strange but... by david_thornley · 2016-09-29 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  In which case, me beating the crap out of you would be practicing philosophy. I have an ethical framework, which is inherently philosophical, and beating the crap out of you would involve ethical thinking. (It's strongly against my ethical framework, which is one reason I wouldn't do it.) Reading a book about something is nothing but applied epistemology. Talking about nothing important to someone would be practicing philosophy (consider the problem of joint perception of the world). You're stretching the word all out of any useful meaning.
  There is a philosophy of science, which includes the scientific method. There is a philosophy of ethics, which includes (somewhere at the end of a long and complicated chain of reasoning) how I should treat people I meet. There is a philosophy of epistemology, which includes interpreting what I see (consider Plato's cave or Descartes and his malicious deceptive demon). There is nothing in my everyday life that is not related to philosophy.
  So, either everything is philosophy, or you have presented no support for your claim that science is.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
71. Re:Call me strange but... by david_thornley · 2016-09-29 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Um, comparing a control with an experimental group and doing statistical analysis on the results is doing science. The 5% is not a difference between metrics, but the generally accepted limit of how improbable a result might be before it's worth publishing. It is arbitrary, but it's not just in psychology. Physics requires a much higher standard, but physics is a whole lot simpler than psychology.
  I don't know which psychology experiments you've seen, but the ones I've read about seem fairly rigorous. It's possible that they missed something, but, even so, randomly dividing people into two groups, treating them differently, and noting a significant difference in responses is science.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
72. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-29 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Atheistic model: You just die, and experience nothing.
  Theological model: Things corresponding to Table 2 happen.
  There need be no explicit restatement of theological concepts within the paper itself. Use your brain.
  You do, however, have my full blessing on your choice to simply die and become completely irrelevant in every possible respect, including advocating the stance of your post.
73. Re:Call me strange but... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2016-09-29 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  The scientific method can't be proved by the scientific method, and thus it is a philosophy. :-)
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
74. Re:Call me strange but... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2016-09-29 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Violent philosophies are still philosophies. And yes, just about every rational train of thought, and quite a few irrational ones, are philosophies as well.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
75. Re:Call me strange but... by RespekMyAthorati · 2016-09-29 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  OTOH the planet easily can hold 3 - 5 times the population.
  Sure, with 3-5 times as much pollution, which is already bad enough to
  make the lives of 95% of the world's population a living hell.
  
  But you don't care about that, do you? Just go on parroting the nonsense you hear in church.
76. Re:Call me strange but... by angel'o'sphere · 2016-10-03 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Most parts of the planet have no pollution.
  Pollution right now is a problem in China and India.
  Just go on parroting the nonsense you hear in church.
  I don't go into churches, and I really doubt people in churches talk about population issues or pollution.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
77. Re:Call me strange but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-04 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  No, I just understand science better
  
  If you n199ers understand science why do you live in mud huts?
What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:21 · Score: 0, Insightful

There's millions of kids in this world who need adopting. How about they try that instead of passing on their hereditary disorders and polluting the gene pool even further.
1. Re:What selfish bastards by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-09-27 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is more demand for adopting babies than babies available. It can be a challenge.
  Now older kids... they get the short end of the stick, very few people want to adopt an older child; part of that is that they often come with emotional and mental challenges due to being orphans and passed around without a real home for much of their childhood... and not getting adopted adds to that.
  If someone wants a baby, it may be easier to get medical help than adopt. You could say they should adopt one of the older children available for adoption instead... and that would be nice but some parent's aren't willing to adopt a troubled older child rather than start with a clean slate who they can mould into their own child.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
2. Re:What selfish bastards by sims+2 · 2016-09-27 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't bother me near like what articles like this: "Europe needs many more babies to avert a population disaster" https://amp.theguardian.com/wo...
  World wide we have a shitload of extra people that would love to have a job. It's not necessary to go oh crap we aren't going to have enough people in 20 years because that is NOT what's happening. Just increase immigration to compensate and better outcomes for all.
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
3. Re:What selfish bastards by dgatwood · 2016-09-27 06:41 · Score: 3
  
  There's millions of kids in this world who need adopting. How about they try that instead of passing on their hereditary disorders and polluting the gene pool even further.
  I think you kind of missed the point, which is that this lets them pass on most of their genes without passing on their hereditary disorder....
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
4. Re:What selfish bastards by laserhead · 2016-09-27 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  There's millions of kids in this world who need adopting. How about they try that instead of passing on their hereditary disorders and polluting the gene pool even further.
  Respect other's choice. Not everyone like to adopt other's children.
5. Re:What selfish bastards by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-27 06:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There is more demand for adopting babies than babies available.
  Indeed. My wife and I looked into adoption, and we were told it would be a long arduous and expensive process, and in the end we would probably be rejected because of my age (50+). So we got a dog instead.
6. Re:What selfish bastards by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-27 07:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Just increase immigration to compensate and better outcomes for all.
  RTFA. This procedure is illegal in the USA, so the parents went to Mexico. This baby IS an immigrant.
7. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  So people cursed with infertility should also be saddled with the responsibility of adopting the world's orphans? Think a bit more about the terrible insult that you are lobbing at people with a medical problem that is more stressful then terminal illness.
  Is everyone who has children as 'selfish bastard' ? Or only the people with a reproductive medical problem?
8. Re:What selfish bastards by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  > Just increase immigration to compensate and better outcomes for all.
  Yeah because look how well that worked out for Germany and France. NOT.
9. Re:What selfish bastards by sims+2 · 2016-09-27 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Wow thats crazy!
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
10. Re:What selfish bastards by sims+2 · 2016-09-27 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure what you're referring to exactly. Here in the US the example often provided is remember what happened to the native americans (aka indians)?
  No it didn't work out well at all which is partly why every country AFAIK has their own immigration system to limit the number of additional people moving in from other countries.
  but if you need an extra 30,000 300,000 people a year it's pretty easy to just let them in and you get to cherry pick who you let in for the skills you want backgrounds whatever.
  I really don't like how the current system is not enforced in the US as the song goes "come to the USA there's no penalty to pay should you get caught illegally immigratin"
  
  --
  Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
11. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  I don't get why older kids would be harder to adopt. I think the perfect adoptee would be 17 years old-you get them for a year and if you like them, great. If not, you kick them out and be happy you only had to put up with them for a year.
12. Re:What selfish bastards by DarkOx · 2016-09-27 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Just increase immigration to compensate and better outcomes for all.
  Maybe, or it could me a worse outcome for all. I won't talk about race, race has been more or less scientifically proven to be a not a real thing. While there may be some clustering toward the lower and upper bounds of the normal range for various characteristics in some populations its not big enough to be relevant.
  Culture on the other hand is. Europe has had a huge problem with 'multiculturalism' you can't allow just any immigrants to show up and form ghettos. Its curcial to recognize and value ones one culture and probably ones national identity. I am all for legal immigration but the people who come here (speaking as an American) so do so because they want to be Americans, not ${former nationality}-Americans, no ${former continent}-Americans, or ${ethnic-population}-Americans but just plain simple Americans. I am all for freedom of religion and am okay with whatever they want to do inside their homes, or at their meeting place on ${Weekday} or if they don't want to ${food item} etc. In general though they need to join the rest of secular society, see the same movies, talk about the same sports, eat most of the same foods, date people no from their orign group, etc. Its simply wrong to place equal value on other cultures. Western civilization is superior its brought like to a dark world that other cultures frankly have not made lasting contributions to in terms of thought and ideas since before the fall of Rome.
  'We' as individuals are not better than 'them' but 'we' as a culture certainly are. If 'they' want to immigrate grate as long as their desire is to be like us. If its to come here or to Western Europe just to live in Little-${whatver} but collect a bigger public assistance check than is available back home, no we should not want them and we should not let them come. Recently cultural appropriation has been branded a bad thing. Its not its great thing, imitation is the highest form of flattery! Cultural appropriation is in fact the correct and proper way to value other cultures. You recognize what is best about them and perhaps better than our traditional way and adopt it! That is the melting pot model, we take the best ideas from everywhere and made them our own! Everyone should be welcome who wants to add and integrate. Unfortunately this idea that we have to allow them to instead replace, in the name of respect has taken hold.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
13. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  >There's millions of kids in this world who need adopting.
  >long arduous and expensive process
  Surely this flagrant contradiction will be solved in short order, as everyone knows the wishes of the masses get translated into real-world consequences and better conditions, not ignored indefinitely.
  
  Oops, my eyeballs rolled back so hard they got stuck.
14. Re:What selfish bastards by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  > Not sure what you're referring to exactly.
  The 3 million immigrants that Merkel let in and subsequent massive rise in rape and other crime in Germany, The islamic terrorist attacks (most usually by recent immigrants) in cities all over the EU, most notably Paris. The way that islamic immigrants are not integrating at all into their host countries and are instead forming their own Sharia-law ghettos in in cities like Tolouse (FR), Brimingham (UK), Amsterdam (NL), and have stated their objectives are to stay separate and overrun/take-over their host countries through massive population growth.
15. Re: What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  and then pay for their college?
16. Re:What selfish bastards by DRJlaw · 2016-09-27 08:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  RTFA. This procedure is illegal in the USA, so the parents went to Mexico. This baby IS an immigrant.
  1. The article says that this is a Jordanian couple who sought treatment from U.S. doctors, and that the U.S. doctors chose to perform their work in Mexico.
  2. The article doesn't suggest that anyone was an immigrant anywhere (def'n: "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.). People appear to have temporarily traveled to do stuff, then returned to their respective homes. So, the baby is an immigrant to where? The parents' home country? Because?
  3. Finally, there's this little thing called citizenship by birth, which the not terribly reliable but readable-by-non-arabic-speaking-me source suggests is automatic for this child. Your own country, by definition, is not a foreign country, which means that you cannot be an immigrant to it. Similarly, for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent in wedlock, odds are pretty good that they're already a U.S. citizen, falling on the "Nationality" side of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
17. Re:What selfish bastards by unixisc · 2016-09-27 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  There is more demand for adopting babies than babies available. It can be a challenge.
  Now older kids... they get the short end of the stick, very few people want to adopt an older child; part of that is that they often come with emotional and mental challenges due to being orphans and passed around without a real home for much of their childhood... and not getting adopted adds to that.
  If someone wants a baby, it may be easier to get medical help than adopt. You could say they should adopt one of the older children available for adoption instead... and that would be nice but some parent's aren't willing to adopt a troubled older child rather than start with a clean slate who they can mould into their own child.
  That depends on where you are talking about. While there may be a shortage of babies in the West, there ain't such a shortage in Asia i.e. China, India, et al. So GP makes a valid point. In this story, the parents in question are Jordanian. There is no shortage of Syrian orphans in Jordan that they could have picked from. But then again, adoption is a practice that was ended by Mohammed in Islam, so that's probably out the window.
18. Re: What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  If you adopt a child after 13 you aren't responsible for their college like you are with your own kids. The FASFA considers them to be an independent student. If you adopt a 16 or 17 year old out of foster care you can actually get the kid 5k a year extra to help them pay for school.
  http://www.nacac.org/adoptionsubsidy/factsheets/tuition.html
19. Re:What selfish bastards by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-27 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  So, the baby is an immigrant to where?
  No, the baby is not an immigrant. I was making a joke. The GPP's suggestion that families desiring healthy children should instead just support a more permissive immigration policy is so patently absurd that I didn't think it deserved a serious answer.
  30 year old woman to boyfriend: I want to get married and have a baby.
  Boyfriend: Sure, we could do that ... or we could just make a campaign contribution to Angela Merkel.
  Woman: Okay, that would be fine, the end result is the same per capita GDP, and that's all that matters.
20. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is twofold. First off we've swung from been far too keen to make young (or otherwise judged unsuitable) mums adopt out their kids back in the 50s to the opposite extreme of stigmatising *anyone* who thinks of adopting out their (unplanned or unwanted) kids even when that would be best for all concerned. Secondly we've set the bar for adoptive parents so high (as a result of it being set far too low in the past) that many loving people who would make excellent adoptive parents simple don't make the cut. We'll get it sorted out eventually, but for now the situation is far from ideal.
21. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  I won't talk about race, race has been more or less scientifically proven to be a not a real thing. While there may be some clustering toward the lower and upper bounds of the normal range for various characteristics in some populations its not big enough to be relevant.
  That couldn't be more wrong. There are huge differences, even if you can't admit because it isn't PC. A few examples: lactose intolerance and very low alcohol tolerance is very common in Japs, incompatibilities for organ transplants are worse for different races (short of someone from your family you want someone from your race), very different physical attributes (some obvious ones: skin, eye, hair, nose)... Look at the Olympics. What race are the best runners? And the best swimmers? Notice it isn't the same? There's a reason for that, and it isn't that water is racist and the ground isn't.
22. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  It may be "mean" to say this, but I agree. In this particular situation, what is the benefit of putting their future child through the risk of an experimental genetic procedure? So that the genes of their child are more similar to their own? That's a very weak justification.
  Of course, _now_ it appears that the procedure seems safe. I don't think this sort of decision making should be rewarded, however. There's a reason they had to move the operation to Mexico, and that reason is lower safety standards. FTA:
  "Neither method has been approved in the US, so Zhang went to Mexico instead, where he says “there are no rules”. He is adamant that he made the right choice. “To save lives is the ethical thing to do,” he says."
  The problem with this statement is that the life didn't exist yet; and only now exists because of their choice to go through with this procedure.
23. Re:What selfish bastards by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-27 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm German and live partly in France.
  What exactly do you mean?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
24. Re:What selfish bastards by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-27 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  The 3 million immigrants that Merkel let in and subsequent massive rise in rape and other crime in Germany,
  Germany has 80 million inhabitants.
  If Merkel "had let in" 3 Millions that would be roughly 5% of the original population, in other words for 100 Germans there suddenly would be 5 "strangers"
  You must be able to suck on your middle finger and make a smart face and figure by your self that this idea is ABSURD.
  Where ever you got that number from, I suggest to burn that newspaper.
  The islamic terrorist attacks (most usually by recent immigrants) in cities all over the EU, most notably Paris.
  First of all: there where like 4 during the last 5 years. So: not really a threat.
  Secondly: the attacks where not done by immigrants. But by citizens of foreign background.
  There are no immigrants coming to Europe, waving with a $1000 note and calling: 'where can I buy a gun?', and then running around killing people. You are an idiot!
  have stated their objectives are to stay separate and overrun/take-over their host countries through massive population growth.
  Citation needed Ooops, did I really say that?
  How do you think it is mathematically possible that a minority of 3% to 5% can grow quickly in a reasonable time that it out grows and over takes the rest of the 95% - 97% of the population? Considering that only half of those 3% - 5% are women and actually can bear children and considering that pregnancy takes a 9 months and considering that none of the women will have more than lets say max 5 children (from which again only half are women and they need min. 14 years to be pregnant themselves?) ?
  Considering that the rest of those 95% more or less keep a constant total number, the total population has to double that the "enemy" is even on par. That takes roughly 300 years. Do you really think in 300 years islamic immigrants still are following Islam or that they rather sit in a space station around Mars and watch the Pleade storm? Or if they still follow Islam (like the stupid Christians follow the Pope): does that still mean they want to conquer the world?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
25. Re:What selfish bastards by JustNiz · 2016-09-27 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  > Where ever you got that number from, I suggest to burn that newspaper.
  Germany let in 884.9 thousand in 2014 and over 2 million immigrants in 2015 alone. Those are the EU's own figures. Go suck your own finger.
  > First of all: there where like 4 during the last 5 years. So: not really a threat.
  Tell that to the families of the 12 people who died during the Charlie Hebdo attack, or the 130 that died and the 368 (80â"99 critically) injured November 2015 attack. Fucking insensitive wanker.
  > How do you think it is mathematically possible that a minority of 3% to 5% can grow quickly in a reasonable time that it out grows and over takes the rest of the 95% - 97% of the population?
  I don't but that's what they are trying for.
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
26. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  "the people who come here want to be Americans, not $(former nationality)-Americans"
  Citation needed. I don't think this has been generally true for at least a generation now.
27. Re:What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  > Is everyone who has children as 'selfish bastard' ?
  Yes. Or stupid. Or victim of an accident and/or crime.
28. Re: What selfish bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/6/refugees-germany-more-than-1million.html
  Which is it?
29. Re:What selfish bastards by angel'o'sphere · 2016-09-28 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  The EU let in 900,000 in 2014 and over 2 million in 2015, not Germany.
  You are an idiot.
  So that Germany had 2 million immigrants the EU would need to have something like 40 million to 80 million, even you must figure: that can not be right ...
  FYI: I'm german ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
30. Re:What selfish bastards by JustNiz · 2016-09-28 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  > The EU let in 900,000 in 2014 and over 2 million in 2015, not Germany.
  Wrong.
  http://www.dw.com/en/two-milli...
  > You are an idiot.
  Are you gonna apologise since clearly you're the one who is wrong?
  > FYI: I'm german ...
  That just makes your ignorance worse, since its your country.
31. Re:What selfish bastards by angel'o'sphere · 2016-10-11 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't apologize.
  You are an idiot.
  Germany has not 2 million immigrates in a single year. Where would we place them? Again: 2M immigration in a single year, that is one person per 40 citizens, that is a bit more than 2 per 100. You would simply see them on the street!!! That is a no brainer. The city would be "full with them".
  https://de.statista.com/themen...
  http://www.zeit.de/politik/aus...
  OTOH we have numbers like this, same magazine :D
  http://www.zeit.de/politik/deu...
  Which support your claim but subtract the emigrations ...
  Anyway. If every year 1 or 2 million would immigrate we had not a stable 80M population but would gain 7 - 10M over a decade: which we don't.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
32. Re:What selfish bastards by JustNiz · 2016-10-11 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  >> You are an idiot.
  At least I'm not a rude fucking asshole like you.
33. Re:What selfish bastards by angel'o'sphere · 2016-10-11 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you are, but I'm not :D
  Being an idiot is a mind and knowledge problem, being an asshole is a character problem.
  If you were not an idiot you knew that.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It takes a village by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-09-27 06:26 · Score: 2

It takes a village...

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Re:It takes a village by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  In Debbie's case, all of Dallas.
2. Re:It takes a village by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-09-27 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  ... and she still didn't get pregnant.
  
  --
  "That's the way to do it" - Punch
3. Re:It takes a village by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 18:10 · Score: 0
  
  Such a tearjerking tale...
This Creature Is Going To Hunt You Down by zenlessyank · 2016-09-27 06:27 · Score: 1

And then eat your brains. You should find a good place to hide Mr. Doctorman.
1. Re:This Creature Is Going To Hunt You Down by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  "Plum Island Animal Disease Center of New York (PIADCNY) is a United States federal research facility dedicated to the study of animal diseases. It is part of the DHS Directorate for Science and Technology.
  Since 1954, the center has had the goal of protecting America's livestock from animal diseases. During the Cold War a secret biological weapons program targeting livestock was conducted at the site, although it had slowly declined through the end of the century. This program has been for many years the subject of controversy."
  And:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2. Re:This Creature Is Going To Hunt You Down by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget, it released Lyme disease into the wild, caught by migratory deer and taken to Lyme, CT, where it gets its name from. More harm than help came from there.
Re:Or they could have just adopted by Oswald+McWeany · 2016-09-27 06:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hardly fair to call the baby malicious names even if you disapprove of this medical technique. If you must; bash the doctor and the parents, but the baby is innocent in this.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:33 · Score: 0

There are exactly two kinds of people who would be excited about this:
A) Those who are selling it
B) Those who have been sold on it
Adoption? by gti_guy · 2016-09-27 06:34 · Score: 0

With all the kids waiting to be adopted in this world, they resorted to this? How selfish and sickening.
1. Re:Adoption? by StikyPad · 2016-09-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  While people who adopt are doing the world a service, but that doesn't mean that having children of one's own is doing the world a disservice. If you're going to call anyone selfish and sickening, perhaps the adults who bring children into the world that they can't or won't care for should be first on your list.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
2. Re:Adoption? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. And look at all of the healthy people choosing to birth their own children instead of adopting. Disgusting. Simply disgusting.
3. Re:Adoption? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:51 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  WTF are you talking about?
  Demand FAR exceeds supply in adoption. You haven't even bothered to learn the slightest thing about it before jumping to your insulting conclusion.
  Seriously, shave the neck beard, say goodbye to mom's basement. Learn something. Live your life. Go outside for god's sake and quit filling the Internet with your lunacy and shameful behavior.
4. Re:Adoption? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Hardly. In that case, there would be no orphanages, no temporary custody (I don't know the US phrase for this). Either way, there a lot of children who need homes, much more so than demand.
  The difference is they want a baby, for some god-awful reason it has to be a baby.
5. Re:Adoption? by Digicrat · 2016-09-27 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed.
  I do believe, however, that those with the resources and need to conceive a child through artificial means should also have the responsibility to adopt a child in need (for when they are ready to care for a second child), or at a minimum to make a generous donation to help children in need.
6. Re: Adoption? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Or should we mention the country that refuses to allow many aid organisations to supply contraceptives because of the political clout of right wing conservative Christians? That might be causing more population growth than couples who are being helped by ivf and potentially programs like this, but there has been no mention by the adopt to save the planet commenters criticising this couple.
7. Re:Adoption? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  It's called foster care, and the children in it are either not available for adoption because their parents are being given a chance to change their ways, or they are fire starters, or have accused the last ten foster parents of molesting them so can get new parents and no one wants to take the risk, or they are black.
  
  And anyway, it is no one's responsibility to adopt. If it's so damn important, how many have you adopted? Few want to raise other people's kids, especially after the most rewarding part is over with. But ./ loves to snub their nose at the filthy pleb breeders.
8. Re:Adoption? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  Demand FAR exceeds supply in adoption.
  Demand for cute, healthy, white babies exceeds supply. Demand for "child to adopt" doesn't exceed "children available to adopt".
Re:Or they could have just adopted by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:35 · Score: 2, Funny

He called it a monster because he's terrified of it. He's afraid of a baby.
Congratulations by rlp · 2016-09-27 06:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Congratulations, Ms Singh, your newborn child has been engineered to be superior in every way. And yes, 'Khan' is an excellent name.

--
[Insert pithy quote here]
1. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  KHAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps Dr Zhang is also a parent... by ionymous · 2016-09-27 06:45 · Score: 1

since it was his creation.
Not the first by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:45 · Score: 0

Me and my bro took turns fucking my wife and my first born has his smile but my eyes.
killjoy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:46 · Score: 0

It will take a Brit to take all fun out of threesome
Re:Or they could have just adopted by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:48 · Score: 1

Right?
I remember reading about how when test-tube babies came out, people called them horrible names like this.
Now it's socially accepted and the insult-spewing hate-filled people like the AC are silent. And they were on the wrong side of history, btw.
Now fast forward a few decades. Three-parent babies will be more common, and socially acceptable.
And this guy will have diverted his attention so some other new thing to be cruel about, like troglodytes usually do.
this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:49 · Score: 0

this is wrong on many levels. may god help us all.
1. Re:this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  this is wrong on many levels
  I bet you can't even make a coherent case that it's wrong on one.
  
  may god help us all.
  We don't need it.
2. Re:this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  when you're dying of cancer and let's see who you pray to.
3. Re:this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  i don't know, but your god is boring, and kind of a jerk.
4. Re:this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Since your god is not doing anything to prevent babies from having genetic disorders, someone has to try to do something about it.
5. Re:this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  I'll be talking to my doctor. I'll be praying to no one at all.
6. Re:this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  if your doctor can cure cancer i'd like to have his number
7. Re:this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  My doctor can't cure cancer. But he can treat it, which is more than prayer has ever been shown to do.
8. Re: this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  u will face death someday and only then will u know the truth.
9. Re: this is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 15:53 · Score: 0
  
  We all face death, and after that we know nothing.
  Oh, and thanks for proving me right. You really can't make a case that "this is wrong" at all.
Re:Or they could have just adopted by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:51 · Score: 0

Until this monster baby devours Tokyo!
Why are we doing this? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:51 · Score: 1

This feels very narcissistic to me. I realize that if I were in the position of the parents I would want the same thing. However, you can't always have what you want (nor should you). Stop being selfish (needing your "damaged" genes to propagate) and let nature take its course in keeping the specie's gene pool healthy. There are plenty of children that need to be adopted. Raise one of them, and accept they won't be propagating your genes but they will be propagating your values. I think we're evolved enough to do that aren't we?
1. Re:Why are we doing this? by omnichad · 2016-09-27 07:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Stop being selfish (needing your "damaged" genes to propagate)
  
  The damaged mitochondrial DNA was replaced completely - and will propagate the replaced DNA as well.
  
  There are plenty of children that need to be adopted.
  A baby is a child, but a child is not a baby.
  
  Raise one of them, and accept they won't be propagating your genes but they will be propagating your values.
  Depending on the age of the child, there's no guarantee you can change/undo what's already been done.
2. Re:Why are we doing this? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever talked to couples who have tried to adopt? It is a very difficult process and costs a ton of money.
Misleading clickbait title. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 06:56 · Score: 0

I'm disappointed that they used such an unnecessarily inflammatory headline. The procedure was the genetic equivalent of an organ transplant. This should spur no controversy, and doesn't (in my mind) equate to a "3-person baby". The fact that it paves the way to things that might be considered controversial later is akin to nuclear power vs nuclear bombs. It's about how you use it.
1. Re:Misleading clickbait title. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  The procedure was the genetic equivalent of an organ transplant.
  Or just a cellular organ transplant, to put it even more simply. The genetic equivalent term could be reserved for using targeted gene manipulation to prevent a decease from developing at the embryonic stage.
Re:Or they could have just adopted by ShanghaiBill · 2016-09-27 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative

Hardly fair to call the baby malicious names even if you disapprove of this medical technique.
The same thing happened back in 1978, when Louise Brown was born. Today everyone accepts IVF as routine. This time will be the same: The first baby is on the front page, the 2nd baby is mentioned on page 6, and the 3rd baby is ignored.
Hurray by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-09-27 07:07 · Score: 1

As the one thing we're running out of is people (adoptable trash need not apply).

One thing that needs excised from DNA is the lizard-brained drive to spread our bloodline above all else, damned be the cost or consequence.
1. Re:Hurray by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  That would merely be a high-tech form of suicide for our branch in the tree of life.
2. Re:Hurray by Wulf2k · 2016-09-27 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  What if the mitochondrial DNA isn't enough to kill a child, just damage it?
  Isn't it better to fix it wherever we can instead of having this damaged DNA carry through the generations?
Knife - Wound - Turn by Kjella · 2016-09-27 07:12 · Score: 1

The resulting egg -- with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor
Popular donor, Luke Skywalker will be.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1. Re:Knife - Wound - Turn by Cattrance · 2016-09-27 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Popular donor, Luke Skywalker will be.
  Eggs, Luke Skywalker is lacking.
Wow by What'sInAName · 2016-09-27 07:16 · Score: 1

That's a heck of a way to have a three-way. Doesn't sound like it's as much fun though...
Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:16 · Score: 0

Jonathan Coulton - Betty and Me
Re:Or they could have just adopted by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:17 · Score: 0

Don't be such a drama queen!
I was a test tube baby. I was called names. Big deal. Everyone gets called names.
They used to call me "Big Testys." No ill effects - in fact I'm very popular with the ladies!
This was a foursome or an orgy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:21 · Score: 0

By all means this was an orgy
"Zhang was here"
(And I don't want)
Sequel by colinrichardday · 2016-09-27 07:24 · Score: 1

Heather Really Has Two Mommies!
Fooling Darwin by DNS-and-BIND · 2016-09-27 07:24 · Score: 0, Troll

Having a genetic disorder is Darwin's way of telling you to adopt. There are tons of children going to sleep without parents every night in the care of the government. They badly need parents. Fooling Darwin like this will not end well, it's a slippery slope to designer babies.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1. Re:Fooling Darwin by omnichad · 2016-09-27 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  So is "Darwin" just a scientific challenge or your God? Because your words betray you.
  The children with no parents are not the fault of the parents who want to start a baby from scratch - keep the blame with the parents that abandoned them.
2. Re:Fooling Darwin by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Why blame the parents?
  If the kid wasn't such a brat, the parents wouldn't have abandoned them.
  Keep the blame with the kids.
3. Re:Fooling Darwin by Wulf2k · 2016-09-27 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Going to a hospital is Darwin's way of telling you to get out of the way of the more fit individuals.
4. Re:Fooling Darwin by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  How many have you adopted? You aren't putting the selfish pleasure of a child-free life in front of these poor children's welfare, are you?
Not Impressed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:27 · Score: 0

Freddie Krueger was the son of a hundred maniacs. So, by comparison this is nothing.
Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:37 · Score: 0

And so declines the overall health of the human race ...
Not meaningfully different from in-vitro by Junta · 2016-09-27 07:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, a lot of work went in, but ultimately, all of the *significant* genetic material came from two parents. Passing on your mitochondrial DNA doesn't do anything to really shape your offspring (unless your mitochondrial DNA is just *really* messed up). Now if the donor egg somehow had defective Mitocondrial DNA, ok, this is at least somewhat useful.
But pretending this offspring has three equally biological parents is disingenuous.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
1. Re:Not meaningfully different from in-vitro by omnichad · 2016-09-27 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  But pretending this offspring has three equally biological parents is disingenuous.
  They're not equal in parentage, but they're definitely equal in being biological donors whose DNA pass on to future generations.
  I don't think anything equates them as being equal, but it's still an awful lot of genetic material to not be considered for biological parentage at all.
2. Re:Not meaningfully different from in-vitro by Junta · 2016-09-28 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  they're definitely equal in being biological donors whose DNA pass on to future generations.
  Passing on mitochondrial DNA doesn't really count.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
3. Re:Not meaningfully different from in-vitro by omnichad · 2016-09-28 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  I count it. You don't. Without any useful argument, that's pretty much it. Mitochondrial DNA carries all sorts of information setting up how metabolism is carried out, which is as much a part of a person as how their kidneys are made.
Would three parents make this child a chimera? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 07:48 · Score: 0

Also reminded me of the guy from The Expanse who had like nine parents.
Too much office work by Tablizer · 2016-09-27 08:33 · Score: 2

Now all the usual forms and databases are going to have to be reworked. And they may not stop at 3 parents, so design it for many parents.
Next the baby will be able to be its own parent, creating recursion. You go to print out a family tree, and get a Stack Overflow error.

--
Table-ized A.I.
"First"? This was done in the 1990s. by jeffb+(2.718) · 2016-09-27 08:36 · Score: 5, Informative

Okay, this may be the world's first baby, but there are apparently 30-50 teenagers with three parents.
The girl with three biological parents
The technique was pioneered in the late 1990s, but then the US FDA said "please cut it out", and as far as we know everyone did.
So, yes, the future looks bright for this new baby, given that several dozen other beneficiaries of this technique seem to be doing quite well in their teenage years...
1. Re:"First"? This was done in the 1990s. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, this may be the world's first baby, but there are apparently 30-50 teenagers with three parents.
  There is something illogical about this, but I can't really put my finger on it...
2. Re:"First"? This was done in the 1990s. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 21:04 · Score: 0
  
  Replacing some mitochondria is different from replacing the nucleus.
What happens when this baby has babies? by Maxo-Texas · 2016-09-27 08:44 · Score: 1

I don't know. Please explain.
Is the baby fixed so it's reproduction will be normal or will it be unable to have children safely?

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
1. Re:What happens when this baby has babies? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 16:58 · Score: 0
  
  the baby has normal genetics. It has the usual 23 pairs of chromosomes. The main thing is defective genes have been replaced by a donor.
  This baby is less likely to have children who have recessive traits, in what areas depends on which chromosomes were substituted for a donor.
  Research like this would eventually eliminate Downs Syndrome for example. It would take multiple generations of focused effort for that to actually occur, but theoretically it makes a positive change to humanity's future.
Inconceivable! by nospam007 · 2016-09-27 08:50 · Score: 1

Lots of government preprinted forms might need replacing.
This will cost us a fortune. :-)
As for the Subject, in this case, Inigo Montoya, it really is.
Re:threesome technique by Hognoxious · 2016-09-27 09:07 · Score: 1

One in the slit, one in the shit.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Rabble Rabble Rabble by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 09:37 · Score: 1

It's Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, and Susan!
No GMO's! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 10:05 · Score: 0

(even wierd hybrids)
No GMO's! That's Genetically Modified Offspring.
Great by Greyfox · 2016-09-27 10:51 · Score: 1

Now we're going to have to come up with a love song for that.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Waiting for Ubermensch by Humbubba · 2016-09-27 11:05 · Score: 1

Congratulations to the mother, the other mother, the dad, Zhang and his team! Avoiding disorders with prophylactic genetic techniques heralds a brave new world of making a better person. This is the greatest science story of the year. It changes everything - it can change our fate as a species.
Why do you hate America and its values? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 11:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

RE: In general though they need to join the rest of secular society, see the same movies, talk about the same sports, eat most of the same foods, date people no from their orign group,
Why do you hate America and its values?
Should we deport all the Amish? Orthodox and Hasidim Jews? Moral majority-style Christians? Mormons? Devout Muslims?
I agree some cultures are better than others, but you have American culture quite wrong.
The things we should share in common are respect for the law, right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, understanding of inalienable rights, and so on. Take some civics classes or something.
The sports and movies and (presumably) TV trash you are talking about is absolutely unnecessary to partake to be a good American. Shame on you, and learn to love what this country is actually about.
ironic captcha; idealism
I've been telling my wife for months by tgibson · 2016-09-27 13:51 · Score: 1

that we should bring another woman into the bedroom. It's in the service of science!

A five-month-old baby boy has been revealed as the first kid in the world with three biological parents
"only one of which developed normally" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-27 23:21 · Score: 0

So what happened to the other four? Are we allowed to know? This is just disgusting and should be banned immediately.
shoulda RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-28 06:52 · Score: 0

Now if the donor egg somehow had defective Mitocondrial DNA, ok, this is at least somewhat useful
oh, so kinda like the exact situation that is described in the article?
Why? by martinfb · 2016-09-28 14:11 · Score: 1

What's wrong with natural selection? Let the strong survive.

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.