Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd totally agree w/ this from the "grow corn and then feed cows with it" standpoint. This is doubly bad if you're displacing natural grasslands and grassland grazing with this. I.e. plant corn on your previous grasslands and cram the cows into some barn. This came through HN just recently. Another way to do the same though is to go back to what the big buffalo herds were naturally doing. I.e. let your cows actually…
Kinda what Iceland does. Multiple sheep per person. They tag 'em, let 'em roam free and collect them later in the year. https://www.cntraveler.com/story/iceland-welcomes-tourists-t... Same with many random islands explorers came across: they'd leave some livestock so when they came back later they'd have some dense and fresh food ready to harvest. Didn't work so well in Australia. And probably any of the islands most…
“Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
301–310 of 371 posts
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a deep misunderstanding about how modern farms work. Farmers are smart - they have to do because there is no iterating on a bad crop. You fail once or twice (often because of reasons beyond your control like the weather) and you can be out of business. And failing might not be known until a 6-9 month long harvest. Farmers love "Big Ag"'s seeds not because they are naive, but because they have a local sale re…
Farmers are not smart. They operate outdoor biofactoriea accordong to protocols defined by people far away and using all manner of materials focussed on maintaoning the factory, not the farming. Ask any agronomist. There's even that Netflix documentary. Industrial farmers understand the economics of their operation, but very little about its biology. They know as much about that as Amazon warehouse workers know about…
If you believe farmers are beholden to whoever you think they serve, you should be twice as suspicious of agronomists who have no literal and figurative skin in the game.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have been sued for growing patented potatoes, unrelated to round up . . . Ok? U take tuber u put it in ground it grows more tubers u try to sell BOOM illegal son .
Uh huh.
0
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some other farmer's trash blows into my field, it's mine.
And if you then spray Roundup on that trash to concentrate the patented trait, you've deliberately violated the patent.
I get what you're saying from that perspective. It's just BS.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#305Most people support patents because they have this romanticized notion of some little guy in his garage inventing the next light bulb. That’s not representative of the mass offensive and defensive patterns of use by modern corporations. We should just end patents, period.
The main issue with patents is not that they exist but that the system for filing and enforcing them has been eroded to the point where it has become a highly effective tool for big corporations to enforce patents they arguably should not have received against smaller competitors. That's technically illegal but since it is super hard to argue that in a court, companies get away with anti competitive behavior. And of course they are actively supported in this by bought and payed for politicians. In the US that's called lobbying, in much of the rest of the world we'd label that corruption, nepotism, and graft. Not a good thing. But as old as power and politics is.
The issue is not patents but the corruption around it.
The system in the US is flooded with bull shit patents that would not be acceptable else where. A lot of those have issues with their claims being overly broad, prior art, or a complete and utter lack of novelty. This does not matter. Getting patents rubber stamped is a numbers game. You just send more patents in and eventually a few will get approved. Of course, it costs a money to register and keep patents but once you have them the system is rigged in your favor. Challenging a patent is super expensive relative to filing one. And since patent offices are under staffed, they bias in favor of approving. And also they don't like admitting they were wrong to approve.
None of this happened by accident. The system was lobbied into the shape it is in today by the largest patent holders in the US (i.e. every big mega corporation you can name). They use patents as a tool to keep competitors out of the market. And they do so very successfully. To the extent that this is becoming a problem.
The solution is fixing the system, not getting rid of it. A big motivation for this could simply be that patents are not globally enforceable. So, you might convince companies in the US to not compete but e.g. Chinese companies will happily take your patented thing and run with it. Good luck complaining about that in a Chinese court of law. And they seem to have bootstrapped a pretty nice high tech industry in recent decades there. Bad patents actually erode the competitive position of US based corporations. While they are tied up in courts being sued by patent trolls, their foreign competitors are free to compete without concern for such things. Great argument for getting politicians off their ass. The problem exists to a lesser extent in other jurisdictions of course. But the US is the most paralyzed by this.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#306Cool and all, but there's not a single mention of "hybrid" on the entire page, which means that this is not targeted at the majority of, say, US agriculture. The general public does not understand agriculture well, and I've noticed that this misunderstanding is stronger among those that have huge huge concerns about seeds and GMOs. Hybridization is a huge benefit, one of the primary reasons to use seeds from somebody…
> The general public does not understand agriculture well, Nor do farmers, nor do people with opinions on farming. It's in the economic interest of some to confuse knowledge of farming as an economical activity (i.e. industrial farming) from the biological activity. I fully agree GMOs and such get an undeserved bad name, but Big Agri deserves way more of that bad name than they are getting. Farmers are their Amazon w…
That's wildly inaccurate
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
You objection to "patenting life" seems utterly spurious and would effectively end GMO seeds (as the effort expended creating them could not be recouped.) But perhaps that's your ulterior motive. I see no legitimate motivation for your position.
$169 for a HiFi Gibson Assembly kit. Up to 8000bp for about $2200-3500. It's not as forbidding as you might think. The insistence on IP law being the only probable, legitimate incentive is what's spurious.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if you then spray Roundup on that trash to concentrate the patented trait, you've deliberately violated the patent.
I entered no contract with the patent holder. I get what you're saying from that perspective. It's just BS.
Patented seeds are not something you would have come up with yourself. This is pure envy creating a sense of entitlement.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#309Cool and all, but there's not a single mention of "hybrid" on the entire page, which means that this is not targeted at the majority of, say, US agriculture. The general public does not understand agriculture well, and I've noticed that this misunderstanding is stronger among those that have huge huge concerns about seeds and GMOs. Hybridization is a huge benefit, one of the primary reasons to use seeds from somebody…
> Specialization and different roles is helping improve productivity immensely, which means less land is used by farming, and more land can be maintained, or returned from ag use for ecological restoration. There are three problems: - the most obvious, concentration of market power. Just look at the stranglehold large corporations have over politics - Walmart is for example famous for getting away with underpaying th…
Not everybody eats restaurant food for entertainment. Sometimes you can't cook and a larger portion means leftovers and usually more calories per dollar.
There's nothing wrong with large portions. If you didn't want that much food, go to a different restaurant, or a buffet where you can select exactly how much food you want.
And what large portions are we talking about anyway? That peaked in the 90s just like your bug splattered windshields.
Re: “Open source” seeds loosen Big Ag’s grip on farmers
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the point of GMO technology that you can use it to accomplish this "in the lab" rather than in the field?
But then the GMO company patents the result, and it's not legal for a farmer to do what farmers have been doing for ten thousand years: save some of the seeds from the crop and plant them the next year, or give some to a neighboring farmer. Getting out of that trap is a prime motivation for "open source seeds" projects.
Anyway, why exactly is this tradition so important that it would swamp the social benefits from improved plants obtained from GMOs (and such benefits must exist, or else farmers would not use these seeds)? This sounds like reflexive conservatism, wanting an old thing just because it is old, and damning changes just because they are changes.