Yeah, just like when genetically modified insulin was developed, and a drug company seized the monopoly, holding diabetics around the world hostage and forcing them to pay billions in ransom to stay alive.
We all know that truly game-changing technology historically has benefited only one corporation and that other companies and the general public have been at that corporation’s mercy, unable to benefit from competing technology. It worked that way for the spinning jenny, the automobile, and everything else that radically changed the way we live.
Well, actually I don’t remember things working out that way. But that’s what happens when you wear those rose-colored blinders. :dubious:
Just to be on the safe side, let’s keep things the way they are and not try to use science to better ourselves.
When you’re already a well-off Westerner, it’s easy to oppose further scientific advances. The rich European/American/Canadian etc. is already living the sweet life. They have no problem affording groceries. Increasing food yields and the nutritional value of food is largely beneficial to people in place Africa, and those people are far away and less important to a Westerner who enjoys posting GM alarmism on Facebook.
I wasn’t speaking as a Luddite there. I was talking about the potential to abuse present intellectual property law, which is stricter than IP law before about 1980.
And of course Dr. Salk made a choice not to exercise his patent rights because he had an archaic moral code. What young techno-utopian would do that today? Does the Pirate Party have research labs? Will Mozilla somehow go into biotech and save the world? Don’t make me laugh.
Of course not. Treaties enforced by the world’s most technological advanced military, itself the living, breathing, life-devouring incarnation of the great god of technological progress, grow ever further and stronger over the world. And Aaron Swartz is dead.
And just as Roman republicans embraced the living fact that Cæsar was the supreme god of the world of men, enough of the Silicon Valley libertarians who populate spaces like this will hail the new overlords as utterly deserving to quell any dissenting movement from their [del]idealistic[/del] “backward-thinking” and “romantic” friends.
It is no longer legal to oppose an illegal arrest. Enemies of the state conveniently commit suicide impossibly in police custody. And as it is in the USA, so shall it be wherever our culture, our #1 export, is able to reach.
The marketplace of ideas follows the big money, and in the end we will all be owned by Big Tech, itself owned by a cabal of parasitic lawyers.
And to oppose it is to be purged as surely as to oppose Uncle Joe was.
I didn’t see it either and got my information from someone who had seen it. I’m with you: if the biggest claim is the Monsanto nonsense then it’s not worth seeing.
Decades of research that was not adapted to african climates or soils. And selective breeding is a genetic modification, otherwise it would be no change
But you would prefer africans remain photogenically poor and dependent and starving for decades of slow modification than for genetic modification to assist rapidly.
No, the adaptation to the current climate and the soils and to the specifics of that climate zone is hard work and parachuting in the european varities blindly and arrogantly and saying “be grateful and avoid the scary gmo because us priviledged westerners do not like it” that is even worse in its attitude
It also has extremely significant value in all manner of simulations - valuable for various industries, particularly those involving molecular chemistry and biology.
Question. How many times has this happened in the past?
No, seriously. We’ve had numerous world-changing medical and scientific advances. How often has what you’ve described happened? The insulin example is a pretty good one. Restrict the supply of insulin, and the world’s diabetics are fucked. Just completely screwed. What happened when people found out how to make insulin (and patented the procedure)? Did companies throttle the supply and try to milk them for all they were worth? No. Life got considerably better for diabetics. How 'bout modern agricultural advances? You know, the ones that allowed the Green Revolution? Were those restricted like that? Nope. And of course, there’s the issue of profit. Again. Why would a company stick R&D money into something they can’t profit off of? I mean, we could just hope that all such advances come out of academia, but the fact is that many such advances (patented IP from corporations with a profit motive) have been significantly positive to mankind.
Yeah, that’s the other thing. This is part of why I find the whole “Bt cotton is killing Indian farmers” thing so hard to buy. If IP law was causing this kind of issue, it would be easy for the country to tell Monsanto, “Fuck you, we can’t have this happen to our people, we will not enforce your plant patents”.
Or, or, or, the company won’t perform price gouging, because it’s not even in their best interest. In your hypothetical, what would be better for the company: only selling to those who can afford jacked-up rates, or selling it to everyone (because everyone needs it) at rates they can afford and profiting off of that?
Well this went off the deep end pretty quickly.
Way to strawman. The reason we call people in the organic movement “backward-thinking” and “romantic” is because they are. Because they’re fundamentally clueless about how modern agriculture works, and about what’s necessary to keep it running. Take Shiva, for example. She has no idea what she’s talking about. Everything she says is in favor of a damn near religious idea about natural subsistence farming. A religious idea that cannot feed everyone.
Yeah, like I said. Pretty far off the deep end pretty fast.
It seems to me foolsguinea is a person talking from an emotional idealogical stance that is not connected with the rational analysis. “2030 when the phosphate rock mines become completely tapped” is a strange thing to read. Maybe it can be re-written to say “making a presumption of no discoveries, no developments of new resources or not any other economic change making uneconomic reserves economical, that is to assume the static ideas and the static technology and the static economic pricing”
of course the figure of 2030 is not the end of reserves, this is a misunderstanding by foolsguinea who must have been reading very unreliable sources. the figure of 2030 is a prediction of peak availability of the rock phosphate. this is very different than running out. it is not a prediction widely agreed on, and it resembles the predictions of the peak oil. But it is not a bad idea to treat the phosphour as a scarce resource.
This does show how unreliable the sources of the scaremongering that foolsguinea has read.
My personal view? - no argument. I’m a closet scientist.
However I’m here as a devils advocate, and because I harbour some disquiet about the ease of genetic manipulation. We don’t yet know all the consequences.
One thing mankind is good at is acting today (in good faith) and desperately pushing back tomorrow. A simple example - the rabbit. Originally introduced to Australia and NZ as a food source these cutes animals have become a scourge. I’m sure there are similar examples in the US.
Monsanto is “evil” because they take advantage of lobbying and overly zealous patenting laws. (And yes, they are overly strict, see the Taberrok curve.) But of course it’s mostly the government that is “evil” here. Blame the game, not the player.
Monsanto is viewed as evil mostly because people are on the “sanctity” level in Haidts moral foundations. People feel that genetically modified foods, and the whole modern crop system is impure. This is not a foundation that is based on empirically bad consequences, it’s about their feeling about the perceived purity.
Since the sanctity moral foundation holds less weight in public debate than it used to (although it still holds a lot of weight), people shape their arguments to be more towards “reciprocity” and “care/harm”, with arguments like that they are being too vigilant with the upholding of patents, are hurting the poor, etc. But those are not really the main reasons, since then you could hate hundreds of other companies equally much.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
And of course Dr. Salk made a choice not to exercise his patent rights because he had an archaic moral code. What young techno-utopian would do that today?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t dispute that Salk was a great man. But the claim about why a patent wasn’t sought for his polio vaccine appears to be a fable.
"As pointed out by Robert Cook-Deegan at Duke University, “When Jonas Salk asked rhetorically “Would you patent the sun?” during his famous television interview with Edward R. Murrow, he did not mention that the lawyers from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had looked into patenting the Salk Vaccine and concluded that it could not be patented because of prior art – that it would not be considered a patentable invention by standards of the day. Salk implied that the decision was a moral one, but Jane Smith, in her history of the Salk Vaccine, Patenting the Sun, notes that whether or not Salk himself believed what he said to Murrow, the idea of patenting the vaccine had been directly analyzed and the decision was made not to apply for a patent mainly because it would not result in one. We will never know whether the National Foundation on Infantile Paralysis or the University of Pittsburgh would have patented the vaccine if they could, but the simple moral interpretation often applied to this case is simply wrong.”
Personally, I can’t understand why we need to push golden rice and other nutritionally enhanced GM crops on Third World people. Why can’t they just go down to their local Whole Foods market and purchase all the healthy organic food that they need?
Monsanto is not evil. It is simply a successful agro-chemical company which acts to protect its specialised products.
The problem is the products themselves and mainly I think of Roundup Ready crops. These include soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum, with wheat under development. We don’t know how insects and soil biota are affected. We don’t know how humans are affected. The gene may be transmitted to other non-GM plants.
Caution and skepticism are sound perspectives when dealing with such leaps of science.
But hey - they may be the cleverest thing since sliced bread.
I’m worried about kalettes, the new hybrid kale/brussels sprouts vegetable created through horizontal gene transfer under laboratory conditions, without any human testing or knowledge of how it will affect soil organisms or the rest of the environment.
*"Why isn’t there any resistance to this vegetable? Kalettes are a hybrid vegetable and clearly a product of genetic modification. But because the new hybrid was developed using traditional breeding methods, it doesn’t face the same resistance that genetically engineered crops do…traditional breeding methods also involve meticulous genetic manipulation of the result in order to produce something they could sell. Heather Hansman reports in Modern Farmer:
It took Tozer almost 15 years until they felt like they had a marketable product. They tweaked the flavor to tone down the Brussels, worked on varieties that had longer growing seasons and bred in strains that they deemed more attractive. Even now, as it’s being sold, they’re still tweaking the details…In reality, it takes a lot of laboratory experimenting (and gene-ius) to come up with a completely new, not-found-in-nature vegetable that farmers will grow, stores will sell and consumers will eat.
Ironically, a century ago, people were afraid and opposed to hybrid crops as ‘violations of nature’ just as many today are wary of genetically engineered organisms.
So now, we have clearly moved past the fear and objection to hybrids, a big win for agriculture and consumers. When will we do the same for genetically engineered organisms?"*
I’d like to see some evidence that people who think Monsanto abuses their patents (whether they do or not), do not also think other patent trolls are also evil. Surely there is no lack of opprobrium against other companies who are felt to be abusing their patents.
So called conventional breeding programs have been, for almost a century, using radiation and chemicals, on seeds, to introduce random mutations. These genes most definitely have been transmitted to newer varieties, even if these newer varieties were non-GM (and even if they themselves were not produced by induced random mutation). From Wikipedia:
And those gene changes, because they were random, are less well understood than the intentional ones of GM breeding.
Folks like yourself have intimidated the majority of plant breeders into sticking with less effective non-GM techniques. As a result, the vegetable seeds I will plant next spring will be lower yield, less disease resistant, and probably not a good-tasting as they would be if the breeders could do their job without having their hands tied behind their backs. And the vegetables I buy in the supermarket are more expensive than they need be. I don’t like it.
Your understanding of horizontal gene transfer may be incomplete. According to the Oxford Dictionary (as well as other sources), horizontal gene transfer is:
“The acquisition by an organism of genetic information by transfer, for example via the agency of a virus, from an organism that is not its parent and is typically a member of a different species.”
Having plant scientists under controlled conditions initiating kinky sex between different species to create a new vegetable sounds to me like it qualifies.
I mention horizontal gene transfer because anti-GMOers often use it as a scare term to indicate something horribly artificial is going on. In reality, this is a mechanism occurring in nature as well as something scientists accomplish in a greenhouse or laboratory.
You know, people use this example a lot for various points (Michael Moore, in particular).
Why the hell doesn’t anyone point out/realize that he was able to AFFORD to give away the idea for free because the costs in developing drugs back then were lower because it was a lower-tech bio-medicine world. Modern drug development is way more advanced, you need mass spectrometers which cost like half a million dollars (just a guess), massive computer systems to integrate data, etc. etc. And then on top of that the modern approval process is massively expensive, and the FDA requires endless testing to be super-sure about the safety of each new drug.
Salk was working in a university-funded lab in the 1950s, it’s a different world with different costs.
