• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Monsanto Eeeeevuuuullll ?

Haven't watched the videos yet, but I've pretty much figured they're posterboys for corporate evil ever since that little fight over whether they could make sterile seeds for 3rd world countries.

"Um, yeah, we'd like to create an absolutely captive market so we have an eternal monopoly, how about it?"
 
GreyICE said:
Haven't watched the videos yet, but I've pretty much figured they're posterboys for corporate evil ever since that little fight over whether they could make sterile seeds for 3rd world countries.

"Um, yeah, we'd like to create an absolutely captive market so we have an eternal monopoly, how about it?"
Click to expand...

I don't see why that's wrong. It's your choice to use or not use such seeds; if you don't think the extra cost is worth it, buy some other seeds.

It's like complaining that people charge you for software and won't allow you to just copy it. Well, yeah, but these people need money to make nifty things and if you give them no money only a few philantropists and hobby hackers will be chipping away at the problem; most likely not with the best of tools.
 
Last edited:
How is it a captive market? Monsanto proposes its seeds have benefits...larger yields, requires less in-puts (fertilizer, labor, insectocides, etc.), better quality, etc. (whether or not they are true is up to Monsanto to show). You can buy those seeds or stick with the seeds you've been using or buy other seeds. How is it captive? No one forces farmers to use the seeds...and if they are better (which is a different debate) than why shouldn't Monsanto charge for them? After all, they didn't get created by god, they were created in a costly labratory over years of reserach and development, etc.

It would seem to me that the "captive" audience would be farmers that are prohibited from using new seed technologies rather than the other way around.
 
Although I think many large corporations always look out for their best interests, I have a vested interest in Monsanto, as my father works for a chemical subsidiary of them. Working for them helped our family provide the food, shelter, education, and healthcare we needed to become valuable members of society.
 
soylent said:
I don't see why that's wrong. It's your choice to use or not use such seeds; if you don't think the extra cost is worth it, buy some other seeds.

It's like complaining that people charge you for software and won't allow you to just copy it. Well, yeah, but these people need money to make nifty things and if you give them no money only a few philantropists and hobby hackers will be chipping away at the problem; most likely not with the best of tools.
Click to expand...
So the farmers who use the seeds get a huge competative advantage, and drive everyone else out of the market...

Until their economy hits a hiccup or Monsanto's factory breaks down and suddenly their seed grain can't grow a new crop and a few million starve to death.

Yeah, glad you're not on the policy board of, well, anything. I'd love for a factory breakdown to cause mass starvation.
 
Last edited:
How is the senario you suggest different than what is possible right now...say in mulitple year drought senarios? Large parts of the globe have long faced and experienced mass starvation...both naturally caused as well as man made. Your logic is that a farmer should not opt for potentially better methods of farming (someone else would have to prove the real utility) because if the method is adopted and some unforeseen circumstances occurs, than they'd be up the creek.

So, diabetics shouldn't use insulin because if they got use to using it and there was a glitch at the factory, they might not get thier medicine? Or HIV/AIDS sufferers shouldn't use the drug cocktail because if they use it and stabilize their condition and there's a failure at the factory they'd be up the creek?

I don't follow the logic here. EVERY agricultural innovation is fraught with this potential. Example, today less than 1% of Americans farm, but the farming is incredibly successful thanks to all kinds of technological innovations...tractors, seed technology, new breeds of plants, soild chemistry, etc. AND, bettter yer, because of those changes I don't have to be a farmer. Now, that whole system is subject to periodic failures, are you suggesting we go backwards?

Use or don't use the seeds because they are good for the farmer and/or good for the consumer, but your "it could fail" line just doesn't make much sense....especially because agricutlure could fail with or without using the seeds....
 
headscratcher4 said:
How is the senario you suggest different than what is possible right now...say in mulitple year drought senarios? Large parts of the globe have long faced and experienced mass starvation...both naturally caused as well as man made. Your logic is that a farmer should not opt for potentially better methods of farming (someone else would have to prove the real utility) because if the method is adopted and some unforeseen circumstances occurs, than they'd be up the creek.
Click to expand...
No, my argument was that companies shouldn't sell seeds that produce sterile plants. That's not 'unforseen circumstances.' It's quite easy to forsee circumstances where sterile crops produce huge problems. The words 'economic slavery' come to mind, in point of fact.

A multi-year drought is very different from every plant being sterile.


So, diabetics shouldn't use insulin because if they got use to using it and there was a glitch at the factory, they might not get thier medicine? Or HIV/AIDS sufferers shouldn't use the drug cocktail because if they use it and stabilize their condition and there's a failure at the factory they'd be up the creek?
Click to expand...
Yes, lets turn Africa into a continent of diabetics, for no good reason. Great analogy. I think I'll use it to support my position, thanks.
I don't follow the logic here. EVERY agricultural innovation is fraught with this potential. Example, today less than 1% of Americans farm, but the farming is incredibly successful thanks to all kinds of technological innovations...tractors, seed technology, new breeds of plants, soild chemistry, etc. AND, bettter yer, because of those changes I don't have to be a farmer. Now, that whole system is subject to periodic failures, are you suggesting we go backwards?
Click to expand...
No, I'm suggesting lets not design our system for failure. Duh.
Use or don't use the seeds because they are good for the farmer and/or good for the consumer, but your "it could fail" line just doesn't make much sense....especially because agricutlure could fail with or without using the seeds....
Click to expand...
No it couldn't. Sterile plants create a VERY specific point of failure that never used to exist.

Imagine if a few terrorists could destroy the seed that was being shipped to an entire continent because all the plants they were growing were sterile...

Yeah.
 
I live in a state with a lot of agriculture, and based on what I've seen and heard, Monsanto is pretty damn evil. ADM and Cargill are evil as well.
 
headscratcher4 said:
How is the senario you suggest different than what is possible right now...say in mulitple year drought senarios?
Click to expand...
The difference is biodiversity. If farmers are using seeds from a variety of sources, then there is a chance some farms will still be OK in the face of drought, insects, etc. If every farmer is using the same feedstock and a bug comes along that loves that crop, you have a complete loss of crop.
 
SezMe said:
The difference is biodiversity. If farmers are using seeds from a variety of sources, then there is a chance some farms will still be OK in the face of drought, insects, etc. If every farmer is using the same feedstock and a bug comes along that loves that crop, you have a complete loss of crop.
Click to expand...

I was more concerned about the so-called "Terminator Technology" actually. That's a good point too, but they more designed a system that couldn't do anything BESIDES fail. At the potential costs of millions of lives, no less.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
That's a good point too, but they more designed a system that couldn't do anything BESIDES fail. At the potential costs of millions of lives, no less.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem here. In case of a lack of terminator seeds farmers will just go buy other seed varieties; in the unlikely event of a lack of those they'll buy seeds of another suitable crop. What to plant is a decision many farmers make each year based on economical trends; it's not set in stone.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, I can't think of a solid profit motive for a company to make really awesome seeds if the user can buy one ton then start producing his own. It's a hazard of trying to sell something that can make more of itself.
 
soylent said:
I don't see the problem here. In case of a lack of terminator seeds farmers will just go buy other seed varieties; in the unlikely event of a lack of those they'll buy seeds of another suitable crop. What to plant is a decision many farmers make each year based on economical trends; it's not set in stone.
Click to expand...
You mean if Monsanto jacks the price of their terminator seeds, they'll what? Find the tons upon tons of seeds they need to sow their fields in the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Maybe they'll learn to live on air?

Or will they pay any price they have to in order to get the thing that they need to live? Supply and demand, what's the price flexibility on something that will kill you if you don't get it?

Almo said:
Unfortunately, I can't think of a solid profit motive for a company to make really awesome seeds if the user can buy one ton then start producing his own. It's a hazard of trying to sell something that can make more of itself.
Click to expand...
Oh, I dunno. Take a contract to create a seed that can meet some specification. Make the deliverable on the contract 500 tons of seed.

Easy as pie, really. I just thought of a way right there.

Or you could, I dunno. Be evil.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
You mean if Monsanto jacks the price of their terminator seeds, they'll what? Find the tons upon tons of seeds they need to sow their fields in the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Maybe they'll learn to live on air?
Click to expand...
Monsanto has a global monopoly on seeds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom