Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics • Hacker News Board

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#21

Post by heydenberk » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:09 PM UTC

famousactress wrote: post #5

achompas wrote: post #3

Congratulations to Cloudant for signing a big deal. Why work with a company as...ethically ambiguous as Monsanto? I would love to hear how your team decided to accept this deal, and I hope more than dollar signs crossed your minds. Personally, I would start a startup (if I ever have the guts) for freedom. How could dealing with Monsanto differ from wearing golden handcuffs?

There's nothing ethically ambiguous about Monsanto. You'd be hard-pressed to name an organization of any ilk that's actively perpetrating more devastating evil.

Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible for the advent of LED lighting and they have financed the research of a future Nobel laureate.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#22

Post by dionidium » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:11 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #18

temphn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monsanto has received terribly negative press, this is true. Part of that negative press is due to public dislike of GMO foods in Europe. Part of that is due to their DRM-like technology that stops farmers from replanting seeds after one generation. If you invented a new kind of seed which was significantly more productive but cost billions in R&D to develop, what business model would you use instead? Put in other wo…

No, those aren't really the major problems that people have with Monsanto. We should start by discussing their lawsuits against farmers because Monsanto grain blew onto their fields and move up from there.

The most famous such case (and probably the one you're thinking of) is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser in which the farmer who was sued almost certainly saved and re-used seed, then lied about the accidental nature of the crop's presence on his farm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#23

Post by gravitronic » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:13 PM UTC

Unless you've been in the position to turn down a similar offer and did, you should probably not be criticizing.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#24

Post by white_devil » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:15 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #15

I'll offer the first unqualified congratulations. I don't think it's at all obvious that Monsanto is a perpetrator of "devastating evil" (as one of the comments says below) and I'd love it if one or more of the critics would do more than merely state that as fact.

Someone already posted this: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...

But seriously, if even the politically correct & good natured commenters on HN are unanimous in their hatred for Monsanto, you can be pretty sure it's a pretty despicable company.

So yes, fuck Monsanto, and fuck Cloudant too. Supporting Monsanto in any way is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#25

Post by famousactress » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:15 PM UTC

heydenberk wrote: post #21

famousactress wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing ethically ambiguous about Monsanto. You'd be hard-pressed to name an organization of any ilk that's actively perpetrating more devastating evil.

Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible f…

I could give a fuck how much less electricity my lightbulbs use if it's weighed against actively making it impossible for people to make food.

Also, there's a very good reason you put "green revolution" in quotes, and "agricultural productivity" deserved them in that context also.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#26

Post by Alex3917 » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:18 PM UTC

heydenberk wrote: post #21

famousactress wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing ethically ambiguous about Monsanto. You'd be hard-pressed to name an organization of any ilk that's actively perpetrating more devastating evil.

Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible f…

"Their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the 'green revolution' increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank."

The problem is we now have a food system that is:

- reliant on genetic monocultures

- quickly depleting our non-renewable water supplies

- heavily reliant on oil

- causing massive algal blooms and hypoxic zones

- destroying the thickness of the soil

- depleting the soil of micronutrients

- killing the mycorrhizae

The way we're going there is a very real possibility of 1 billion plus people dying in the next fifty years as part of a massive human dieback because of our current Monsanto-style food production.

Not to mention the fact that even today our food is largely devoid of any taste or real nutritional content, and is causing epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#27

Post by dionidium » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:18 PM UTC

white_devil wrote: post #24

dionidium wrote: post #15

I'll offer the first unqualified congratulations. I don't think it's at all obvious that Monsanto is a perpetrator of "devastating evil" (as one of the comments says below) and I'd love it if one or more of the critics would do more than merely state that as fact.

Someone already posted this: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto... But seriously, if even the politically correct & good natured commenters on HN are unanimous in their hatred for Monsanto, you can be pretty sure it's a pretty despicable company. So yes, fuck Monsanto, and fuck Cloudant too. Supporting Monsanto in any way is disgusting . You should be ashamed of yourselves.

But seriously, if even the politically correct & good natured commenters on HN are unanimous in their hatred for Monsanto, you can be pretty sure it's a pretty despicable company.

Do I really need to point out that this is a logical fallacy?

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#28

Post by thomasgerbe » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:21 PM UTC

gravitronic wrote: post #23

Unless you've been in the position to turn down a similar offer and did, you should probably not be criticizing.

Yeah, screw ethics! I can't criticize anyone for anything unless I've been in there position!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0AL4yml3bw

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#29

Post by vijayr » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:21 PM UTC

oldstrangers wrote: post #2

Fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck Cloudant. "We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now and we couldn’t be more thrilled with the partnership." Thrilled? I guess money is thrilling. "The data & reporting interfaces will be used across Monsanto and should be instrumental in the making of key business decisions." Key business decisions like which small farmer to sue into oblivion? Or what third world nation…

It is one of those companies, that is pretty well documented. From what I've read, Monsanto makes Walmart (and some others) look like angels. Just google for farmers committing suicide in India (especially from Andhra Pradesh). I also read an article about them threatening American farmers, can't remember where. I don't have any experience with them, but from what I've read about them, they seem very very very scary.

Re: Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

#30

Post by hysterix » Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 6:22 PM UTC

heydenberk wrote: post #21

famousactress wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing ethically ambiguous about Monsanto. You'd be hard-pressed to name an organization of any ilk that's actively perpetrating more devastating evil.

Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible f…

That's some high quality propaganda you are spewing out there.

Tell me, since you obviously know so much about the worlds current problem with food.

Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly?

The answer is there isn't a food abundance problem, there is a food availability problem. People don't grow crops and just give them away to the poor; the fact that monsanto has created genetically engineered foods that do things such as resist pesticides, so that large quantities of pesticides can be dumped onto crops without killing them, thus creating, "more food" because less is lost to pests, doesn't get any more food into the belly of starving people around the world.

In fact, the abundance of things like cheap corn around the world is one of the very reasons continents like africa can't ever seem to get on their feet; why would someone buy local african corn that's more expensive than cheaply grown american corn? Undercutting local economies with cheap food has not "feed the world" and does more damage than good.

Monsanto hasn't done a damn thing to allow, "the human population to grow while malnourishment shrinks", that's total absolute garbage.

I'd recommend you ask for more money from your monsanto employers, and if you don't work for them, maybe do some actual research into the company you are defending instead of spewing bullshit that looks like it's been copy pasted from a monsanto PR brochure.

Patenting genetics is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, and you call this ambiguous? You are a fool.