Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

disinformationchronicle.substack.com

31–40 of 192 posts

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#31

Why do people work for companies like this? Have they no compassion for their fellow humans?

I worked at Monsanto for a few years. I won't get into the ethics of the company on this forum, but as a software engineer it was a pretty great place to work. Good engineering culture, lots of very dedicated and smart people and some really fun challenges to work on.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#32
post #22

Why do people work for companies like this? Have they no compassion for their fellow humans?

I ask the same question about Google

Google is unfairly villainized. It provides a service to advertisers, and it give away many billions of dollars of free online services every year. They’ve done literally nothing to harm you nor 99.9999% of people on earth.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#33
post #19

I think a more effective strategy might be shaming individuals who make up the company. Just start buying internet ads with a persons name and how they wrote reports to try and convince people something that caused cancer didn’t cause cancer.

If this sort of thing was effective (and legal, I don't know) you'd think it would be seen regularly. I can't decide if it's better explained by the power of corporate(/political) PR or simply that people don't actually care

I would imagine a huge piece of it is libel and slander laws protect you unless you’re in the public sphere.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#34
post #18

Why do people work for companies like this? Have they no compassion for their fellow humans?

Presumably because they believe in the promise of GMOs.

I'm pro-GMO in the sense of "woohoo, science!", but a lot of it seems to be about making herbicide/pesticide resistance and encouraging that seems like a bad idea.

Case in point, BT GMOs have only trained the insect population for resistance to it: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2011/08/researchers-identif...

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#35
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry are you arguing that this is a reasonable course for Monsanto to take? How about they just disclose when products are shown to cause cancer and try to make ones that don’t?

Do you have an argument ready that people who do not already agree with you about the evils of Monsanto might find persuasive? Your response here is pretty conclusory.

I don’t understand the point you’re making, explain it to me like I’m a complete moron so I don’t misinterpret you.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#37

Why do people work for companies like this? Have they no compassion for their fellow humans?

> Have they no compassion for their fellow humans? Yes. Compassion for your fellow humans is quite unnatural for a lot of people. It's why Christianity was a thing - a non trivial percentage of the population will only pretend to be a human being out of fear.

> Compassion for your fellow humans is quite unnatural for a lot of people.

Could you please quantify? I recall reading the exact opposite conclusion in behavioral and psychological science journals. It’s the reason why the military has to break people down to teach them to kill. Our natural reaction is to have compassion for each other and not to kill each other.

We are a cooperative species that works well together and survives as a group. If we weren’t naturally compassionate, the human endeavor would have died out a long time ago. It also goes a long way to explain why things like hatred, racism, and subjugation of the other require massive amounts of propaganda and disinformation to perpetuate themselves.

I also recall reading in specific cases where compassion seems to be lacking, that there are larger cultural, religious, tribal, criminal, and social pressures at work influencing the outcome of human behavior to limit compassion. Once these forces are controlled for (often with the help of changes to the legal system) compassion tends to return to normal, average levels. Examples might include Good Samaritan laws.

It is my experience that more people want to help than hurt, more people want to promote the general welfare of the group rather than a select few, and more people desire to see others happy and prosperous, rather than unhappy and suffering.

This enduring, popular myth that everyone is out for themselves and doesn’t care about anyone else is the product of larger, psychopathic forces at work wishing to control society for its own purposes. The masses of humanity wish to live peacefully and in harmony with others. It is a very tiny few that have chosen to take power and use it against others. They are the ones that lack compassion, not the whole of humanity.

Over many decades, I’ve personally made note of and observed a strange and unusual undercurrent to popular culture that seeks to make people more aggressive, violent, and unnecessarily competitive and war-like, while attempting to denigrate, decrease, and diminish our proclivity for sharing and cooperation. This behavioral system of control is obvious and omnipresent once you start looking for it. It is not natural and it only serves to increase inequality and give power to fewer and fewer people.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#38
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this sort of thing was effective (and legal, I don't know) you'd think it would be seen regularly. I can't decide if it's better explained by the power of corporate(/political) PR or simply that people don't actually care

I would imagine a huge piece of it is libel and slander laws protect you unless you’re in the public sphere.

I would argue publishing a journal is a very public thing, note the root word of publishing.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#39
post #32
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask the same question about Google

Google is unfairly villainized. It provides a service to advertisers, and it give away many billions of dollars of free online services every year. They’ve done literally nothing to harm you nor 99.9999% of people on earth.

Many of us would argue that providing privacy-invasion-as-a-service, at scale, to people who want to sell us shit is harmful and villainous. Even if you set aside the dangerous aspects of some of the "free online services", like YouTube serving as a massive engagement-driven platform for propaganda and radicalization, you're still left with web services designed to hoover up all your data and sell your eyeballs to businesses. That is the behavior of a hostile actor, and vast swaths of people accepting this tradeoff doesn't make its existence any less objectionable to some of us.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#40
post #32
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask the same question about Google

Google is unfairly villainized. It provides a service to advertisers, and it give away many billions of dollars of free online services every year. They’ve done literally nothing to harm you nor 99.9999% of people on earth.

Google is exactly villainized because of the many billions of dollars of free services they provide and use as a source of the data they funnel to the advertisers, while killing competition as a second order effect.

Philanthropy should be done by entities dedicated to it and ethically responsible, not as a camouflage for private data brokering.

Post reply on HN