|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source).
Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
|
On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda).
If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
|
On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection.
Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery.
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda.
That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival.
however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains.
|
On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 05:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 22 2014 05:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 22 2014 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Bribery is illegal, outside of the far left circle-jerk. Riiiiight...I can't take this seriously. Is the suggestion that bribery is illegal so it doesn't happen? or that it can't be prevented any more than it is? or just that it is illegal and still happens rather regularly in the colloquial meaning of the word 'bribe' (as opposed to what is proven in court),except in Jonnyland where it is only people on the left? I'm pretty sure all of the recent bribery stories have had Republicans mentioned. The two that come to mind are the VA senator bribe, and the former Campaign manager from McConnell's campaign who left on bribery allegations. There's no suggestion. I'm literally saying that bribery is illegal, in response to a comment that said otherwise. except for the part where political bribery is not illegal in the US. But your unwilling to hear that anyway so meh, whatever. Political bribery is illegal in the US. Of course it isn't called bribery by the candidates themselves, but what else would you call spending millions of dollars as a corporation or special interest group in order to get a certain candidate in office? Do you honestly expect that politician to not even be a little bit biased when voting as a result of those contributions? Especially considering he will likely want their help again when it comes time for reelection. Yes, "bribery" is illegal in the US. That doesn't diminish the valid comparisons between our campaign finance infrastructure and actual bribery. The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now.
Ehhh this doesn't really translate to ballot initiatives. Companies like Monsanto may have plenty of money to spend on political advertisements, and that may sway a percentage of the voting public, but for your example, if 90% of people are pro-labels, I don't think any amount of advertisement from Monsanto's camp could change the inevitable outcome on election day. In the case of ballot initiatives, public opinion literally does have the last laugh.
Which may be unfortunate in this case since a lot of people are probably pro-label not because they want more information, but because they actually believe GMO's are harmful to them or their families. In the perfect world, science would talk louder than money or public opinion, but that is not the way our country works.
I have no idea what the public opinion in Colorado is, but I wouldn't be surprised if Prop 105 ends up passing on Nov. 4th by a large margin. Hopefully it doesn't affect our agriculture too much...
|
On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
|
On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains.
I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. That is their main advantage : it's not engineered to free us from hunger and give food to the happy world, it's nothing but a capitalistic endeavour.
There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change.
|
On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The Supreme Court doesn't think there's a significant quid pro quo and I tend to agree. Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks."
Yeah, money talks. How else are people supposed to raise support or opposition for these ballot initiatives? By not spending any money? If they are lying, call them out for it, but if they are putting forth factual information in an attempt to educate the voting constituency, what's the problem? Again, I think people are conflating issues here. IMO, campaign funding by special interest groups for elected officials is a grey, bordering on black, area that can rightfully be put under the microscope for corruption. The reason for that is these special interests can funnel money into a single individual who wields an inordinate amount of power over a much larger group of people. For ballot initiatives, Monsanto is not capable of bribing every single voter. Popular opinion is much more difficult, if not impossible to buy, and I think this really isn't an issue.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change.
the current structure of the GMO seed market isn't set in stone. with less barrier to entry a rent extracting industry will lose the rent to newcomers. any early phase of a pioneer technology will have monopolies, and you'd want to speed along the process for wider adoption and competition. regulating it like the smallpox isn't really the way to go about doing that though.
as for protection, this is not really protection so much as shielding it from an irrational inquisition.
|
On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. That is their main advantage : it's not engineered to free us from hunger and give food to the happy world, it's nothing but a capitalistic endeavour. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change.
Does it? Different GMO firms can compete with each other over the same crop, and farmers can choose to buy non GMO seeds if they see it as a better value. It certainly doesn't seem to be monopolistic in a classic sense - the monopolist here, assuming there is one, is still giving the consumer a better value than if there was no monopoly.
|
On October 22 2014 06:28 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Yeah, money talks. How else are people supposed to raise support or opposition for these ballot initiatives? By not spending any money? If they are lying, call them out for it, but if they are putting forth factual information in an attempt to educate the voting constituency, what's the problem? Again, I think people are conflating issues here. IMO, campaign funding by special interest groups for elected officials is a grey, bordering on black, area that can rightfully be put under the microscope for corruption. The reason for that is these special interests can funnel money into a single individual who wields an inordinate amount of power over a much larger group of people. For ballot initiatives, Monsanto is not capable of bribing every single voter. Popular opinion is much more difficult, if not impossible to buy, and I think this really isn't an issue.
Yea, it may not really apply to the ballot initiative parts of it (or even the state-side issue of it). That's fair.
|
On October 22 2014 06:29 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. the current structure of the GMO seed market isn't set in stone. with less barrier to entry a rent extracting industry will lose the rent to newcomers. any early phase of a pioneer technology will have monopolies, and you'd want to speed along the process for wider adoption and competition. regulating it like the smallpox isn't really the way to go about doing that though
The "barrier to entry" in such field are not "fixable" by the state, they're a reality you can't deny. Not only a market by nature goes towards monopolistic structure but in such research heavy field where patterns are made for every possible strain the "barrier to entry" are not a problem that comes from the state, but the result of a specific structure.
More than that, in this specific field a monopole is way more problematic than in many other field, because it create a complete dependancy of the farmers towards the GMO firms.
On October 22 2014 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. That is their main advantage : it's not engineered to free us from hunger and give food to the happy world, it's nothing but a capitalistic endeavour. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. Does it? Different GMO firms can compete with each other over the same crop, and farmers can choose to buy non GMO seeds if they see it as a better value. It certainly doesn't seem to be monopolistic in a classic sense - the monopolist here, assuming there is one, is still giving the consumer a better value than if there was no monopoly.
Nothing is monopolistic in the strict sense. Don't play on words like you always do, you'll find a wall in here.
|
On October 22 2014 06:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:29 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. the current structure of the GMO seed market isn't set in stone. with less barrier to entry a rent extracting industry will lose the rent to newcomers. any early phase of a pioneer technology will have monopolies, and you'd want to speed along the process for wider adoption and competition. regulating it like the smallpox isn't really the way to go about doing that though The "barrier to entry" in such field are not "fixable" by the state, they're a reality you can't deny. Not only a market by nature goes towards monopolistic structure but in such research heavy field where patterns are made for every possible strain the "barrier to entry" are not a problem that comes from the state, but the result of a specific structure. More than that, in this specific field a monopole is way more problematic than in many other field, because it create a complete dependancy of the farmers towards the GMO firms. Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. That is their main advantage : it's not engineered to free us from hunger and give food to the happy world, it's nothing but a capitalistic endeavour. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. Does it? Different GMO firms can compete with each other over the same crop, and farmers can choose to buy non GMO seeds if they see it as a better value. It certainly doesn't seem to be monopolistic in a classic sense - the monopolist here, assuming there is one, is still giving the consumer a better value than if there was no monopoly. Nothing is monopolistic in the strict sense. Don't play on words like you always do, you'll find a wall in here.
Everything is monopolistic in the loose sense. You're making the claim, back it up.
|
On October 22 2014 06:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:39 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:29 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. the current structure of the GMO seed market isn't set in stone. with less barrier to entry a rent extracting industry will lose the rent to newcomers. any early phase of a pioneer technology will have monopolies, and you'd want to speed along the process for wider adoption and competition. regulating it like the smallpox isn't really the way to go about doing that though The "barrier to entry" in such field are not "fixable" by the state, they're a reality you can't deny. Not only a market by nature goes towards monopolistic structure but in such research heavy field where patterns are made for every possible strain the "barrier to entry" are not a problem that comes from the state, but the result of a specific structure. More than that, in this specific field a monopole is way more problematic than in many other field, because it create a complete dependancy of the farmers towards the GMO firms. On October 22 2014 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. That is their main advantage : it's not engineered to free us from hunger and give food to the happy world, it's nothing but a capitalistic endeavour. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. Does it? Different GMO firms can compete with each other over the same crop, and farmers can choose to buy non GMO seeds if they see it as a better value. It certainly doesn't seem to be monopolistic in a classic sense - the monopolist here, assuming there is one, is still giving the consumer a better value than if there was no monopoly. Nothing is monopolistic in the strict sense. Don't play on words like you always do, you'll find a wall in here. Everything is monopolistic in the loose sense. You're making the claim, back it up.
I'm not into explaining every single step. You can maybe reflect and understand how a dependancy (legal and practical) between a farmer and a specific strain of crop create a monopolistic like situation.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 22 2014 06:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:29 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. the current structure of the GMO seed market isn't set in stone. with less barrier to entry a rent extracting industry will lose the rent to newcomers. any early phase of a pioneer technology will have monopolies, and you'd want to speed along the process for wider adoption and competition. regulating it like the smallpox isn't really the way to go about doing that though The "barrier to entry" in such field are not "fixable" by the state, they're a reality you can't deny. Not only a market by nature goes towards monopolistic structure but in such research heavy field where patterns are made for every possible strain the "barrier to entry" are not a problem that comes from the state, but the result of a specific structure. More than that, in this specific field a monopole is way more problematic than in many other field, because it create a complete dependancy of the farmers towards the GMO firms. disagree about necessary monopoly, since the operative enforcement for said monopoly is IP rights on particular genes, this is obviously a government device.
the research base has a major academic component, and it is rare for a particular desirable trait to only have one gene combination. what happens to encourage monsanto's popularity is that their strain is immune to glyphosate, by way of not absorbing the stuff into the plant itself. they have patent on this gene, and the combination of the popularity of the herbicide contributes to the popularity of the seed.
nevertheless, the way GMO is regulated has a very harsh safety constraint, so it would not be something that works well with an open source model. a midway point is to allow for patenting of particular strains without patent of the source genome.
|
On October 22 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:19 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:16 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:10 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2014 06:02 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2014 05:58 ZasZ. wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] Once again, $100 Million campaign. Oh yea, but that's not significant. It's not "Quid Pro Quo" because it's an open auction. And the supreme court also claimed that such things also don't contribute to the appearance of corruption. Do you agree with that? Because that puts you at odds with a large majority of Americans. And there are plenty of other studies like this one that lend itself toward that. I'm baffled that you could possibly think this and further baffled that you think that GMO crops is not an example. This isn't a "leftist" issue at all. Both sides' politicians do it, and both sides complain about it. You're just being completely unreasonable. I agree with you about political bribery, but how are GMO crops an example? If anything, the money going into convincing people GMO's are bad for you is an example of funding gone wrong. A huge portion of the population (apparently above 90%???) say that GMO foods should be labeled whether or not they don't mind eating them. However, corporations like Monsanto have the power of money, rather than public opinion. The reason they aren't labeled is because money talks louder than the populace under the current political environment. Whether or not labeling is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to what it says about the functioning of our democracy. We see some states trying to label it, as states are not nearly as corrupt as the federal government right now. Corruption has nothing to do with it. Voters are undecided on the issue, some states have passed labeling laws and they have failed in other states. As I pointed out before, the 90% stat is a misnomer - once people learn more about the issue support falls. I must have completely missed this. Do you have better stats on that? There have been votes that failed. For example, >51% of Californians voted no in 2012 ( source). Err... did you look at the donations part of that article? Opposing the proposition was completely overwhelmed with money (that presumably went into advertising and propaganda). If they were advertising facts about GMOs that's not a problem. 2+2=4 is not propaganda. That's a completely ridiculous argument against "money talks." Did you know that schools spend money to teach kids? No, no, I'm sorry, schools are really just buildings where money talks.
yes! I can see youve been reading your althusser :D
|
On October 22 2014 06:51 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:39 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:29 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change. the current structure of the GMO seed market isn't set in stone. with less barrier to entry a rent extracting industry will lose the rent to newcomers. any early phase of a pioneer technology will have monopolies, and you'd want to speed along the process for wider adoption and competition. regulating it like the smallpox isn't really the way to go about doing that though The "barrier to entry" in such field are not "fixable" by the state, they're a reality you can't deny. Not only a market by nature goes towards monopolistic structure but in such research heavy field where patterns are made for every possible strain the "barrier to entry" are not a problem that comes from the state, but the result of a specific structure. More than that, in this specific field a monopole is way more problematic than in many other field, because it create a complete dependancy of the farmers towards the GMO firms. disagree about necessary monopoly, since the operative enforcement for said monopoly is IP rights on particular genes, this is obviously a government device. the research base has a major academic component, and it is rare for a particular desirable trait to only have one gene combination. what happens to encourage monsanto's popularity is that their strain is immune to glyphosate, by way of not absorbing the stuff into the plant itself. they have patent on this gene, and the combination of the popularity of the herbicide contributes to the popularity of the seed. nevertheless, the way GMO is regulated has a very harsh safety constraint, so it would not be something that works well with an open source model. a midway point is to allow for patenting of particular strains without patent of the source genome.
I don't see any point that goes against mine.
You can judge that the monopolistic nature of GMO market is a good thing, but it's a fact that you seems to agree on. You can maybe act toward lifting the "barrier" (which imply reforming private property and pattern, good luck), but you'd soon understand those barriers are the normal state of such market for many reasons - what about the legal contracts farmers sign to use the crops, contract that are needed for mosanto and other firm to make profit, contract that also bind the farmer to the firm ?
The "harsh regulation" on GMO product is not the result of a rampant anti science ideology, it's the result of a market structure, and a field (the agro industry) that are way too dangerous if it were completly left alone.
|
On October 22 2014 03:33 WhiteDog wrote:
I personally consider that protecting nature should be one of our top priority in this day and age, and GMO have bad impacts not on health but in biodiversity - not only GMO but also modern "intensive" agriculture".
The gain behind GMO are hugely overstated, we actually produce enough food for everybody, but there is too much waste and some people just eat more than they should. The best quality that GMO have for the agro industry is that they permit pattern and monopole like situations. It's about profit, not human well being or research.
You simply do not know what you are talking about. The only reason we can have a sustainable population of nearly 8+ billion is because of GMO. It's like people are completely ignorant of Norman Borlaug. This has nothing to do with the science of GMO's, it's your primitive ideology which drives your viewpoints. Technology bad - Nature good. Then there is the latent disdain for any private proprietorship (the bigger the more hate, regardless of any facts surrounding the firms...GE and other Fascist companies just as terrible as say...Amazon). None of which has anything at all to do with science of GMO's.
I mean, if you want to starve a few billion people then getting rid of GMO would be one way to do it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm not seeing the monopoly at least overall. maybe regionally since weed killing is required in more or less degrees depending on crop cycle and climate. farmers are not being held at gunpoint to sign these contracts btw. the contracts indicate competition actually.
there is also nothing in the market structure that promotes harsh review guidelines. the cost of getting a single strain through the teeth of the regulatory regime is the most direct barrier to entry for the industry, but even then, new firms are catching up.
|
On October 22 2014 06:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2014 06:20 oneofthem wrote:On October 22 2014 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2014 05:51 oneofthem wrote:
probably because the gm strains are superior. i'm not sure what kind of public research you are referring to. Saw a documentary on the subject but don't remember the name. It's not the superior, the problem is the diversity. GM crop are not diverse, they're unique and builded for a specific environment (in fact, GM crop that are different from the norm are usually mutated crop who produce nothing, and thus are to be eradicated by farmer before they reproduce themselves). If the environment change or if a new disease arrive and touch the crop, it's not a field that is touched but the entire production of a country / region, hence the reason why researcher are seeking for traditionnal crop, because not only they are resistant to a specific climate, they are also diverse, not technically engineered to resist a specific disease / climate. Traditionnal crop, while natural, are also engineered by generations of farmers : they are only inferior in productivity. Again I'm all for a "yeah science" and shit, but things are really way more complicated. that's not a problem unique to GM tho, but the aforementioned monoculture. traditional crops are mixed strains, yes, but the GM crop that was wiped out was not really designed for survival. however, your highlighted portion of my post was talking about hte potential to engineer environment tolerant strains. I completly agree, and I've said it in my first post, that's not something specific to GMO, altho GMO are also touched by this critic. But you purposely put aside the main problem with GMO : it gives a monopolistic position to GMO firms, with completly dependant farmers, with rather weak advantage compared to "natural" agriculture. That is their main advantage : it's not engineered to free us from hunger and give food to the happy world, it's nothing but a capitalistic endeavour. There's plenty of research going on fields that have no lucrative short term possibilities, I don't see why GMO should be more protected than any of those research. In the end it all comes down to big firms' profit, and nothing to do with agriculture, "war against hunger" or facing climate change.
Addressing motive is irrelevant (well...in this case). In fact, this is actually one argument in favor of markets, but I digress. The fact that one person will use profit as a motive doesn't mean that the action taken doesn't address those issues you brought up (addressing hunger, agriculture, etc.). What does the motive actually matter from a moralistic standard anyways? The only thing that matters are the outcomes. The fact is that GMO's did alleviate hunger and starvation and allowed the human population to balloon to over 8 billion. Now, you can be a primitivist and argue that, that is a bad thing, but you can't argue that it didn't address hunger and starvation whether or not the motive was for money. If money can motivate people to do good things why is this a bad thing? It is one of the best arguments for markets imho (it also addresses things like racism, sexism, etc. as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
