Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a massive gulf between "shouldn't" and "isn't". :/
So basically you are saying the legal system (in the US?) is worthless?
Draw your own conclusions.
5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
201–210 of 225 posts
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#202Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) d…
It blows my mind that there are people on HN confusing opposition to the horrific practices that Monsanto uses with opposition to GM crops in general. I am a supporter of GM strains of crops, because I think they have proven environmental benefits. However, what Monsanto did to the seed cleaner is no different than blaming BitTorrent for piracy. The only difference is that BitTorrent sites actually have a somewhat po…
I am a supporter of GM strains of crops, because I think they have proven environmental benefits.
I'm not trying to argue over this and I certainly won't try to change your mind, but if you haven't already seen it, this 30 year long study[1] is an interesting read and suggests that organic farming has many benefits over conventional farming and GM crops. I totally understand that the Rodale Institute has an interest in proving this to be the case, but I'd argue that the pro-GM studies are also performed by groups and companies that have an interest in proving their results too. In any case, I'm only trying to offer information on a potential counter-view, not start an argument neither of us could win anyway. :)
[1] http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/FSTbookletFINAL.pdf
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that this isn't directly related to the OP, but: > Dow made Agent Orange at the request of the US military decades ago. Are they supposed to be considered evil because of that? If you observe how even passing information to the gov't is condemned on HN, this almost seems like a rhethorical question.
[Edit: parent said he felt Dow was unethical, and then edited it to the statement above. That's what I was responding to.] I agree completely that businesses must act in an ethical way. However, I don't feel that Dow was unethical. The wiki pages on this are very one sided, making it appear an open and shut case. Dow disagrees, and I've heard that from toxicologists that I knew and respected personally. To quote from…
This article's discussion is a rollercoaster ride of unrelated topics.
But whether something is ethical just because the government compelled you to do it is a pretty general question. Dow's position about it seems pretty clear, especially since they only make statements about American veterans. I just wanted to point out that many people do not intuitively feel that way at all.
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) d…
It blows my mind that there are people on HN confusing opposition to the horrific practices that Monsanto uses with opposition to GM crops in general. I am a supporter of GM strains of crops, because I think they have proven environmental benefits. However, what Monsanto did to the seed cleaner is no different than blaming BitTorrent for piracy. The only difference is that BitTorrent sites actually have a somewhat po…
I like your analogy of equating going after the seed cleaners with BitTorrent. I'd argue it's way worse than that also because, if my understanding is correct, the seed cleaning is an integral part of the process of reusing the seeds, which is an integral part of cheap(er), more traditional methods of farming. It seems to me like in addition to trying to conduct infringement reduction with a cricket bat instead of a scalpel, they're trying to eliminate the ability for farmers to farm in the way they had for generations and to force them to purchase the GMO seeds by making parts of the process-flow the smaller farmers use illegal. Not to be too gloom and doom but this is pretty gloom and doom. Do we really want these corporations (Monsanto, Dow and their ilk) who obviously do not have our best interest in mind to have almost complete control of the supply of our food staples? I sure don't.
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much would corn cost if the completely insane policy of diverting large amounts of it to ethanol production? It may be insane from a purely scientific point of view, but that doesn't tell the whole story. If you recall from around the 2006 timeframe, before the energy policy changes, we were swimming in corn. It was coming out of ears, sitting in massive stock piles doing nothing, and more was coming in each day.…
> ... other crops require additional multi-million, even multi-billion, dollar outlay of new equipment and infrastructure to get started. I think this is the problem with modern agriculture. It shouldn't be like that. If there's a definition of non-sustainable it's surely spelled out quite clearly right there.
Well, what is the alternative to that? You could replace the expensive machines with human hands, perhaps, but nobody is willing to do the work. Farmers already struggle to find help as it is. With some skill, you can make programmer-like salaries as a farm hand on the right farm right now, and they still can't fill the positions.
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a link from RT.com (Russia Today): https://rt.com/news/monsanto-brazil-seed-soy-908/ I have no idea if they're trustworthy either, but Wikipedia[1] had this to say about them: > RT is the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, after BBC News and the first most-watched news channel worldwide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29
Please don't quote anything from RT - it's as useful as quoting Gobbles. While there is a chance it could be true, the association itself makes anything quoted extremely suspect.
Good to know. I had no idea what it was, but it looked more legit than the OP. Wikipedia seemed to back up the idea that it was a proper source, so I linked it.
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#208I'm not going to enter the Monsanto sues innocent farmers debate like everyone else here, but those who are educated in the subject have known for a very long time that Monsanto are quite protective of their seed patents. People only know of a handful of cases where Monsanto sued, in reality they sued a lot of farmers in the 90's, not just the few high-profile cases people have heard of, most settle and don't fight.
We're talking about a company who basically got where they are today by manufacturing chemical laden plastics, acids and more knowingly Agent Orange which was used in the Vietnam war as a chemical weapon and the artificial sweetener aspartame under the brand name Nutrasweet. I can only think of one good thing Monsanto have done for the public: they were the first company to start mass manufacturing light emitting diodes in the 70s which are now used in everything. But if it weren't Monsanto, someone else would've eventually done the same thing anyway.
I hope these farmers succeed. You shouldn't be able to own a patent on mother nature just because you modified a few cells. What's next: parents having to pay royalty fee's for children born via IVF? When nanotechnology starts being commonly used in vaccinations and medicines are we going to have to pay a licencing fee to keep the vaccine/medicine working? What happens if and when human cloning takes place, is that clone the property of the creator and licensed out to the original the person was cloned from?
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your bulls raid my pasture and attack and rape my cows, I might shoot them and even have a barbecue. There's no reason I can't raise the calves as my own. Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader?
I think a better analogy might be a beneficial computer virus. Let's say you write a virus that uses patented technology to remove malware, defragment the drives, reorganize the registry and whatever else a Windows machine needs to run well these days. It infects some of my company's computers, and I notice that they're running well. I direct the IT department to wipe all machines that aren't running well, and leave…
What you should have invented is a anti virus whose distribution you can control. Not a virus that removes a malware. The point behind a virus is a technology difficult to control. Now you invent a beneficial technology extremely difficult to control and which spreads. And then you express surprise when it actually spread?
Honey bees or in general bees are used by nature for cross pollination. If bees are spreading your technology then really its not the farmer that you can blame here. Those bees can fly anywhere. This can spread to a jungle and suddenly you might be faced with a scenario of this thing having spread beyond uncontrollable means. Whom will you sue then?
Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion
#210"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement." Dow provide…
What on earth does this have to do with the original post? I don't think propaganda from Noam Chomsky has any place on HN. I don't agree with a single sentence. The original post seemed very biased in an anti-business way, and this is even worse. Dow made Agent Orange at the request of the US military decades ago. Are they supposed to be considered evil because of that? Union Carbide clearly screwed up in a huge way…
>>Union Carbide clearly screwed up in a huge way over Bhopal, but they settled with the Indian government, and tied up all liability before they were acquired. If you disagree with me, take it somewhere besides HN.
I am from India. Union Carbide, now Dow didn't settle or tied up liability as you mentioned. They lobbied hard both domestically and internationally to run from here by paying least they could. Without the least regard to the victims.
>>Disclosure: I grew up in Midland, MI, headquarters of Dow, and much of my family worked there.
I don't know if you are biased here.
But if you kill people in thousands and injure a generation of millions of people. Then you need to account for something and have some responsiblity.
What Dow did isn't not compensating a factory plant worker who lost his hand. But systematically, with plans and full intentions refused/and refusing to accept responsibilities for their actions that killed several thousands and destroyed lives of millions of people in India.
If this is not wrong, I don't what is.
And I don't know how people involved with this see themselves in the mirror, sleep in the night or live with this on their conscious.
This was almost like a genocide, and victims denied reparations.