Actually, I suspect that the self-terminating tech is mandated by certain governments because they're paranoid about the GM's propagating out of control.
I am confused by a few things.
Who exactly, are the farmers buying the seeds from? Monsanto direct? The Indian government? Whoever's selling, should be responsible for telling the farmers that the seeds need double the water, and that they have terminator tech.
Do the farmers have a choice of GM or non-GM seeds? The article seems to say both.
and
Mermaidman
Diamond Member
- Sep 4, 2003
- 7,987
- 93
- 91
You realize that if it wasn't for farm subsidized here the same thing would happen.
Apparently the Government of India allowed the U.S. to take over without pre-condition and this is what you get.
Should serve as a wake up call to not just India but the entire world to not fall for Corporations and the gooverments they own.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,765
- 614
- 126
I was under the impression that those shackles had little to do safety and a lot to do with assuring a future revenue stream by forcing farmers to buy seeds every year.
Forcing an all or nothing move withholding of the seeds by the Indian government seems to be the biggest crime here. Even if you really thought these seeds were great, a smart grower would just run a small test patch the first year before ramping up the switch over. Removing that options from them isn't just idiotic, its criminal.
How farmers in India get money to buy these seeds is they go to a person like a Loan Shark. Then often if they can not pay their debts, they commit suicide. In India women are sold like cattle to rich people. This is not exactly a technologically advanced nation. In India you have a very large gap between the poor and the people that are wealth or well off.
Yea...that is so shady. I mean the article is obviously very biased, but there is no excuse for terminating seeds. That just makes no business sense for Monsanto. If your customers fail, you fail. What the hell is the purpose of these terminating seeds?
Is there no alternative to the monsanto GM seeds?
First off, "terminating seeds" makes perfect sense for Monsanto. If these GM crop succeeds, they are guaranteed a monopoly market in the agriculture. Farmers will have to buy Monsanto seeds just to stay competitive against their neighbor. Since the seeds cannot reproduce themselves, Monsanto becomes the de facto supplier for the ENTIRE MARKET. If the seeds did fail, in this case it did, Monsanto is simply out of R&D money, which was already a sunk cost. They have literally turned these farmers into lab rats for their invention. To top off, this genetic trait provides NO BENEFITS whatsoever besides allowing Monsanto a guaranteed monopoly in the market.
And if we were to even partially believe the article, there were no alternatives. As explained above, if the seed had succeeded, everyone would instantly convert to these seeds. Traditional seeds would've not been a viable choice. Farmers were ill-informed and ill-educated in regards to their practices and risks of these seeds, as the article pointed out. Corruption created the utter void of government safety net, and pure greed has caused this tragedy.
This is a perfect example of failure of Laissez-faire capitalism.
From a business sense it does NOT make sense. If there is a failed season and the farm goes BK monstanto is out a customer who would have had future revenues. By not allowing some kind of swap deal for old seeds in case of crop failure, monsanto is just making bad business.
It makes a lot of sense, they're investing billions in this technology. They won't be able to make that money back if farmers only had to buy the seeds once. Farmers could also sell the seeds from future crops, directly competing with Monsanto.
The fault doesn't lie in the technology, it's the imperialist policies and corruption that made it the only choice for thousands of farmers.
Monsanto doesn't need to protect individual customers. The article explains what happens pretty well, if a farmer gets in over his head he bails out, one way or another. The demand for agricultural products won't decrease, some one else will buy that farm and Monsanto will supply that farmer with seeds. What Monsanto needs to be concerned about is keeping their product better than that of competitors so people will be willing to take the risk.
I'm wary of GM foods. On the one hand, I'm typically all for the advancement of bioengineering and intelligence controlling the universe.. I like science. But on the other hand, it seems pretty risky and betting against natural evolution seems like a bad bet. If everyone is using genetically identical seeds, and some bug or disease evolves as a perfect predator of that line, then the chance for entire crops to be wiped out is too great. The old fashioned, genetically diverse methods are the natural defense against this. However, I'm sure people smarter than me are aware of things like this, and I know that seed banks exist to keep natural seed stocks around for a backup and hopefully these are just hiccups in learning process. It'd suck though if good science were pre-empted by capitalism.
Forcing people to keep re-buying seeds because the plant doesn't breed like normal is hilarious in a Captain Planet super-villain kind of way.
Forcing people to keep re-buying seeds because the plant doesn't breed like normal is hilarious in a Captain Planet super-villain kind of way.
Actually, the article confuses the issue of whether the farmers were given a choice to buy GM or not (as I stated in a previous post), and the article goes to great pains to show that the GM seeds cost 1000 times more than non-GM seeds, and yet only theoretically yielded double the output. It sounds a lot more like greedy farmers with little foresight failed to do any testing and put all their eggs in one basket.
Also, I believe that I read somewhere that some governments only allow GM crops that are terminating. The article doesn't speak to that either way.
Good Laissez-faire capitalism would have whomever sold the GM seeds doing everything possible to ensure that their customers suceeded, NOT withholding information regarding water requirements and terminating seeds. Why would you want to destroy your own customers? Monsanto is not looking for a one-shot deal.
Anyway, I think the article is rather poorly written in terms of actual facts, and is just trying to pull at heartstrings. I'd like to see something a bit more factual before condemning anyone.
BTW, Laissez-faire capitalism would have nothing to do with influencing the Indian government.
I'm LMAO over Prince Charles actually giving a crap. He does not care about people dying in the developed world. The man is an inbred anti-technology Luddite who would be happy to use this scenario even against humanitarian-developed GM foods.
Millions are dying due to anti-technology European policies against GM foods. That is the true genocide.
You can have regulations on terminating seeds, give subsistence farmers royalty-free seeds, etc.
Millions are dying due to anti-technology European policies against GM foods. That is the true genocide.
You can have regulations on terminating seeds, give subsistence farmers royalty-free seeds, etc.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,585
- 126
i was asking a question because i was interested. feel free to post what stuff i've been making up. i doubt you'll find any. this from the guy who was making claims that the US would invade cuba.
just googling 'obama monsanto' brings up a thread on democratic underground about a monsanto (amongst others) lobbyist joining obama's team, though it looks like a sour grapes clinton supporter and cites washington post, so who knows if it's accurate.
a dailykos post ties clinton to monsanto (fyi, i know it's not what i'm asking).
wired reported that one of his science advisors was a monsanto board member. that bit is probably what stuck in my memory.
do i need proof to ask a question now?
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
The thought of GM crops with terminator genes sounds like an absolute disaster on a tremendous scale just waiting to happen. Monsanto is fucking around with the food supply for the entire world...
From the stories that I've heard about them, Monsanto is evil on a scale that both Microsoft and the RIAA put together can only barely dream of.
From the stories that I've heard about them, Monsanto is evil on a scale that both Microsoft and the RIAA put together can only barely dream of.
I would imagine that there are serious 'technical' reasons why the seeds terminate and why the farmers 'only' planted GM crops.
Varieties of the same species can cross pollinate though with commercial seed you generally don?t have to worry about cross pollination in the current year. I guess it might be possible for GM crops to cross-pollinate with heirloom varieties planted in the same area resulting in some 'mutant' heirloom seeds when used the following year.
Depending upon the species to prevent cross-pollination it is recommended that some varieties be planted at least 10 feet apart - with some varieties up to several hundred yards apart.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Originally posted by: tk149
-snip-
Actually, the article confuses the issue of whether the farmers were given a choice to buy GM or not (as I stated in a previous post), and the article goes to great pains to show that the GM seeds cost 1000 times more than non-GM seeds, and yet only theoretically yielded double the output. It sounds a lot more like greedy farmers with little foresight failed to do any testing and put all their eggs in one basket.
Also, I believe that I read somewhere that some governments only allow GM crops that are terminating. The article doesn't speak to that either way.
Good Laissez-faire capitalism would have whomever sold the GM seeds doing everything possible to ensure that their customers suceeded, NOT withholding information regarding water requirements and terminating seeds. Why would you want to destroy your own customers? Monsanto is not looking for a one-shot deal.
Anyway, I think the article is rather poorly written in terms of actual facts, and is just trying to pull at heartstrings. I'd like to see something a bit more factual before condemning anyone.
BTW, Laissez-faire capitalism would have nothing to do with influencing the Indian government.
I have to agree with tk149.
This makes little sense. Pay 1,000 times the expense for a double the (yield) profit? I don't think Indian farmers are that stupid (The cost is really even higher since you can't produce your own seeds as with normal crops, forcing you to re-buy every year).
And no, it's a majorly stupid business model that kills off your clients, I don't care even if they will be replaced (and what idiot is gonna come along later and get that land and buy those seeds after so many in the area have gone bankrupt and are dead?).
I'd like to see conformation of this before I put too faith in the accuracy of the story. A 1,000 times (or 100,000%) increase in costs? I'm having trouble buying in to that.
Fern
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: tk149
-snip-
Actually, the article confuses the issue of whether the farmers were given a choice to buy GM or not (as I stated in a previous post), and the article goes to great pains to show that the GM seeds cost 1000 times more than non-GM seeds, and yet only theoretically yielded double the output. It sounds a lot more like greedy farmers with little foresight failed to do any testing and put all their eggs in one basket.
Also, I believe that I read somewhere that some governments only allow GM crops that are terminating. The article doesn't speak to that either way.
Good Laissez-faire capitalism would have whomever sold the GM seeds doing everything possible to ensure that their customers suceeded, NOT withholding information regarding water requirements and terminating seeds. Why would you want to destroy your own customers? Monsanto is not looking for a one-shot deal.
Anyway, I think the article is rather poorly written in terms of actual facts, and is just trying to pull at heartstrings. I'd like to see something a bit more factual before condemning anyone.
BTW, Laissez-faire capitalism would have nothing to do with influencing the Indian government.
I have to agree with tk149.
This makes little sense. Pay 1,000 times the expense for a double the (yield) profit? I don't think Indian farmers are that stupid (The cost is really even higher since you can't produce your own seeds as with normal crops, forcing you to re-buy every year).
And no, it's a majorly stupid business model that kills off your clients, I don't care even if they will be replaced (and what idiot is gonna come along later and get that land and buy those seeds after so many in the area have gone bankrupt and are dead?).
I'd like to see conformation of this before I put too faith in the accuracy of the story. A 1,000 times (or 100,000%) increase in costs? I'm having trouble buying in to that.
Fern
It's just typical European media hysteria.
As long as there's demand for the crop, there will be someone who thinks they can do it better than the guy before him. It doesn't hurt that these people are often dirt poor and desperate to begin with. It's not like there isn't a history of citizens of developing countries working jobs with extremely high rates of personal injury and death. When there's millions of people below the poverty line, it's easy to find people willing to risk their lives to feed their families. If the government did in fact ensure that it was difficult to obtain anything except Monsanto's seeds, the people become completely irrelevant to Monsanto as the demand is constant since there's a nearly inexhaustible supply of farmers who have no other choice but to choose Monsanto.
Obviously, Monsanto wants their crops to do well or people won't be forced to buy them to compete with those who do. What's happening in India appears to be a series of bad growing seasons mixed with misinformation regarding the product, and isn't an indicator of the product's overall performance. Monsanto's products usually do quite well, out-competing non GM strains well enough to be worth the extra cost. A relatively minor incident of crop failure in India mostly due to unusual conditions isn't going to change the minds of many of their customers. Since they won't lose customers elsewhere, and India is enforcing a Monsanto monopoly ensuring a constant demand there isn't much of an economic incentive for Monsanto to do anything for these people.
Not saying it's right, in fact it's most certainly morally wrong, but that's what they're thinking and why they're not doing anything to help.
Also, I'm almost positive Monsanto's seeds aren't selling for 1,000 times more than their non-GM competitor's seeds (if they have any competitors).
This article fails to mention the short-sightedness of the Indian Government and it's venal composition that has played as big, if not a bigger role in the crisis. For decades they have encouraged this romantic notion of the poor farmer toiling away in his fields and his rapacious town counterpart hell-bent on exploiting him. To this end, they drugged him with ill-advised freebies and subsidies like free power, cheap fertilizer etc.. Now the money for these has dried up and the chickens are coming home to roost which is also a big part of the problem. As well, for the politicians, the money-trail has moved to the urban areas so they have dropped their previous political darlings viz. the farmers like hot potatoes and made a bee-line for the cities where their presence is nothing more than nuisance-value just like before.
The Indian parliament which should also be held accountable has become nothing more than a debating club which has very little in common with the people it purports to represent. As of last month, it has met for just 32 days for the whole year! The only people that get into politics are those adept at crookedness and cronyism so there really is very little talent in government to solve the problem. During the farmer suicide crisis, guess what they were debating: why there were more suicides in one area of the country than the other!!!
The responsibility for this crisis would normally lie at the feet of the minister for agriculture and, consequently, they would have been raked over the coals or he would have at least taken moral responsibility and resigned. The Indian minister for agriculture has no such compulsions and views the ministry as a hobby while he attends to more important things like the glitz and glamor of the cricketing world where he is the chairman of the board! He's an extremely powerful politician and without his party's support, the coalition government would fall so he knows he's the king of the hill.
The NGOs play no small part in all of this. They should play the bad cop in pointing this out but they know that there's no money in it. The good NGO money is in pillorying big multi-national corporations as a consequence of which they get to hob-nob with people like Price Charles.
The whole thing is a vicious circle and Monsanto is just a cog in the corrupt wheel..
The Indian parliament which should also be held accountable has become nothing more than a debating club which has very little in common with the people it purports to represent. As of last month, it has met for just 32 days for the whole year! The only people that get into politics are those adept at crookedness and cronyism so there really is very little talent in government to solve the problem. During the farmer suicide crisis, guess what they were debating: why there were more suicides in one area of the country than the other!!!
The responsibility for this crisis would normally lie at the feet of the minister for agriculture and, consequently, they would have been raked over the coals or he would have at least taken moral responsibility and resigned. The Indian minister for agriculture has no such compulsions and views the ministry as a hobby while he attends to more important things like the glitz and glamor of the cricketing world where he is the chairman of the board! He's an extremely powerful politician and without his party's support, the coalition government would fall so he knows he's the king of the hill.
The NGOs play no small part in all of this. They should play the bad cop in pointing this out but they know that there's no money in it. The good NGO money is in pillorying big multi-national corporations as a consequence of which they get to hob-nob with people like Price Charles.
The whole thing is a vicious circle and Monsanto is just a cog in the corrupt wheel..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter