Yeah, my mom used to be upset that I didn’t hold onto my old pokemon cards, but not only did I never have any rare ones that would be worth anything anyway, I used them how I wanted to when I wanted to, and when they stopped interesting me, I gave them to someone who was still interested. I don’t regret that.

My mom died of cancer a few months ago because she was convinced that a combination of sunlight’s natural vibrational frequency and some expensive “medical” herbal teas would cure her. Placebos affect people, but if you let them believe that they’re an alternative to actual science and medicine, then they’ll use them as such.

They hate what they’ve been told to hate, and love what they’ve been told to love. Any similarities or differences between the two are irrelevant to them - they don’t even think to look. These aren’t people exploring their options and picking what looks best to them, they’re just doing what they’re told, and thinking they’re smarter for it.

Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.

And… again… as I already said… there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.

Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO’s will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO’s can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.

GMO’s trace back further than that - even when we’re specifically talking about modern methods. The first Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly genetics experiments happened in 1910, though it took a while for us to begin actually creating GMO strains; the first study I know of that did so was in 1927 by Hermann J. Muller, using x-rays to purposefully induce mutations. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter who was the first to purposefully modify the genetics of an organism, modern or otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that we can use, have used, and should use genetic modification for beneficial purposes. Again, GMO’s are neutral; it just means an organism was purposefully modified on a genetic level by humans - it’s the purpose itself that determines whether its good or bad. People will use it for bad reasons just like any technology, and we should stop them, but that doesn’t mean we should shun the technology itself when genetic modifications have been used beneficially for millennia, and modern techniques are just as capable of producing incredibly beneficial changes as they are the detrimental ones everyone’s scared of.

Monsanto creates GMOs based on nothing but greed - they have complete disregard for the environmental impact of the wanton use of pesticides that their resistant strains encourage. But that’s just one GMO application - other crops use genetic modification to produce greater yields or better nutritional value.

Golden rice is a great GMO that can bring vitamin C and other essential nutrients to previously-deficient areas of the world, but it keeps getting delayed and disrupted by people who think that the reason Monsanto is terrible is because they make GMO’s, rather than their sketchy business and science practices they use. GMO’s as a whole are neutral, and there are amazing benefits we can get from them if we understand the difference between good and bad use of genetic modification.

OP’s post points out that beneficial old-fashioned GMO creation through use of selective breeding has immensely improved agricultural yield from the original source - the process of using our own observations to modify organisms on a genetic level is not new, and without it, we wouldn’t be where we are now as a species.

The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism’s own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.

Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.

Sure, but you could selectively breed rabbits for 1,000,000 years and get a glow in the dark rabbit; GFP is just a protein like any other - if you painstakingly selectively breed for a specific DNA sequence, you’ll eventually get it regardless of your starting genetic pool. Classic selective breeding is a form of genetic modification - modern genetic modification methods are just way faster.

I agree that we don’t currently know enough about genetics to utilize genetic modification without unforeseen side effects, and so there should be limitations on what we’re able to genetically modify until we can show that we understand it well enough to meaningfully minimize potential issues, but those same issues occur with selective breeding - they’re, again, just slower.

Because if you look closely, there’s some light blue blobs near the top shaped like the great lakes.

…yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Maybe he’s got no money, or keeps it in a bank with no interest for some weird reason, but the more likely scenario is that he has a lot of money he doesn’t want to make public. If he’s got so much money that it benefits him more to keep it hidden than to let it publicly gain interest, then he’s going to be willing to hand some of it off to a corrupt public official to prevent an investigation.

If a real investigation were done, then there would be no reason for him to bribe anyone, which is the more important thing for the vast majority of the government, so they have no reason to do an investigation. I’d like them to, but my preferences aren’t going to matter to the guy who only took the job of an investigator for the bribery money. If anything, they’ll just do a sham investigation so that they can say “nope, nothing” while walking away with their pockets full of cash.

It’s been a long time since this country meaningfully punished a rich man for doing something wrong.

Why would they investigate it? Either he has no money, and is telling the truth, or he “has no money” and will be happy to share his “nothing” to keep an investigation from happening.

As someone who works with door hardware, this would be a pretty easy interview.

Maybe I’m basic, but I love exposition over pretty much all else. I watched the entirety of Adventure Time despite not really being a fan of the humor or the main characters just because I craved more information about the history of Ooo.

While I’m not exactly a fan of AI, it does make sense that the first things we’re able to replicate with AI, however terribly, are intellectual things like art and writing. While AI might be able to understand how to wash dishes, it would need a way of interacting with the physical dishes to do so, which goes beyond something a computer program can do while confined to a computer.

I wouldn’t be surprised if future dishwashers and washing machines end up having little cameras and sensors so that AI can determine how best to wash them, but if anything that feature would be implemented more for collecting your private information than for any real washing benefit. Plus you’d still have to load and unload the machines - if we wanted AI to handle everything, we’d need robots, which would be waaaay more expensive, and likely something only the richest would be able to afford anyway.

As a kid I’d always go to the appliance section at the thrift stores my family would frequent to see if I could forage some batteries left in the products. They are almost always nearly dead, but I’d take 15 minutes of Gameboy time over nothing.

My parents rarely bought me batteries, and when they did they’d buy the big packs of off-brand ones that only lasted an hour anyway, so I had no power more often than not.

Keep it around so you can stick it on any particularly stubborn bananas or oranges later on.

You’d think so, right?

I’m not discouraging at home novelty tests like ancestry and 23andme, I’m discouraging their use in the situation you’ve described, because that’s not what they’re intended for. I’m very sorry for your situation, and I hope that you find the information that you’re looking for, but you’re more likely to find it with actual paternity tests than trying to glean information from a test that’s not meant for that.

As for the medical comments, ancestry isn’t meant to provide that. It’s not actually sequencing the DNA, it’s just checking for specific sections of DNA that are known to vary between different ethnicities. Some health information can be assessed in that way, but its inclusion in at-home tests was made illegal because those sorts of results need to be handled with a genetics professional so that they can explain the complex results and their impact on the individual and their family. Some at-home tests have added medical information back in, but that’s legally dubious, and considered to be dangerous by genetics professionals.

If there are any medical concerns, a different DNA test should be used, and should be ordered by a genetic counselor or geneticist. Situations like these are one of the reasons why genetic counselors exist - please don’t believe that adding a medical professional to the mix is a bad thing - genetics is a very complex topic, and having someone trained to understand and explain it is invaluable. Please let them help you in your endeavor.

Well, the Ancestry test only really gives stuff like… ancestry. It’s not useful for much else, and for good reason - it’s meant to be a neat novelty, not a medical or paternity test. I’m a former genetic counselor, and we generally don’t suggest getting DNA tests for children unless it’s important for health reasons, or if they’re old enough to give their own consent for it - that sort of information is very personal, and often people don’t want it to be available in their health records.

If you are simply wondering about ancestry, you could always get the test yourself - anything the test shows for you would at least give that side of the kids’ ancestry. Obviously parenthood verification can be useful, but from your other comments you seem to be aware that a mother doesn’t need such a verification, and it’s generally not recommended that you use ancestry tests for that purpose anyway. If you’re concerned about any genetic issues in your family, I’d highly recommend talking to a genetic counselor; they can help organize the family history and see if there’s anything you’ll want to be cognizant of.

You want a DNA test because your kid doesn’t share the same interests in video games that you do? Sure, there’s likely a set of genes somewhat contributing to preferences and interests in humans, but even if we knew them, we’ve already got plenty of evidence that biological children frequently have different hobbies than their parents, so we know things like that are most heavily determined by all of the other things people are influenced by in life, outside of genetics.