SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Retired judge Justice Patrick Tabaro writes of a proposed law in Uganda that looks to adversely affect its independence and, specifically, what is starting to be called these days "food security".
[...] science is not a magic wand for solving man's food security concerns, but must be applied in accordance with Ubuntu (humaneness).
[...] Since the advent of civilization, peasants have had capacity to plant their own seeds. With the advent of GMO farming, the peasants who constitute 70 per cent of the population have their fate sealed; they may fall into the debt trap, fail to service bank loans and will be in danger of losing their cherished land holdings to financial institutions – and this may entail food insecurity for everyone.
[...] God forbid that anyone should be targeting our scientists to make us vulnerable for easy domination.
He concludes that [w]ith GMOs, there is no Ubuntu, (human nature, humanness, humanity, virtue, goodness, and kindness).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 16 2017, @01:55PM (14 children)
GMO (or any roughly monoculture) crops are not designed to make large profits for small numbers of people, they are not designed to benefit mankind as a whole.
The goal is to maximize yield of a commodity, or more specifically: minimize cost per unit delivered to market. Quality of said unit of product to meet minimum marketable standards, yet another capitalistic race to the bottom. And, while we are at it, leverage intellectual property laws to focus profits into the hands of the IP owner - incidentally bringing in big mechanization which raises the capital requirements to compete in the market and de-fragments ownership again into a few hands instead of many. Once those few hands wield sufficient money/power, they can further adjust the laws of the land to their benefit. All in the name of "feeding the people."
There's vast tracts of arable land left fallow in the United States and elsewhere. All this efficiency of production means that we can produce far more food than is needed, which isn't on its face a bad thing, but the way in which we choose to use that power can become a very bad thing for the people who aren't at the focus of the profit taking.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 16 2017, @01:57PM
Oops, "GMO crops ARE designed to make large profits for small numbers of people,..."
Would be nice if Soylent left comments open for editing, at least during the "Slow Down Cowboy!" time period.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 16 2017, @02:07PM (2 children)
GMOs can be designed by universities or charities [wikipedia.org], if not individual farmers in Uganda. The seeds can be freely shared, and if there is a problem with big corporations patenting or restricting seed use, that could be addressed with legislation (much like how India ignores most drug intellectual property and allows production of generics).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday November 16 2017, @02:58PM
Could be. Mostly aren't. Most of the development and lobbying/bribery money is in the hands of Monsanto and friends. And wealth is apparently the most powerful force in modern politics.
Personally, I think we should eliminate all GMO patents and related protections - remove at least the direct profit motive from developing GMOs and help reign in the most dangerous abuses. Wouldn't stop them from developing their Roundup-resistant grains to boost their sales of Roundup, but *would* prevent them from leveraging that into a stranglehold on the food supply. I wouldn't put it past them to make their plants extremely vulnerable to pests on their own, or dependent on specific patented fertilizers to mature - but anyone else could come along and remove their inserted vulnerabilities to get the yield, etc. benefits alone.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 16 2017, @06:00PM
The university IP departments I have had intimate contact with are little better than mega corporations... they certainly seem to be aspiring to become mega corporations themselves, just haven't gotten there yet, so the terms they offer are a little more inventor friendly / less capital intensive for the inventor / developer.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday November 16 2017, @02:08PM (6 children)
[...]
Once again, why is motive more important than outcome? Would it be better if someone killed billions of people in a misguided effort to do good, than if they did the same for profit?
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 16 2017, @02:50PM (4 children)
Motive in this case shapes outcome. The motive of profit itself is not inherently evil. The focusing of profit into a small number of hands from a large number of people falls under the idiom: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The board of directors of Monsanto and other massively powerful corporations _could_ be benevolent masters, turning their amassed power toward the health, happiness and general well being of those whom they collect their profits from. Historical evidence shows that this was not usually the case in the past, and should not be expected in the future.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 16 2017, @04:11PM (3 children)
So what? Once again, we're ignoring outcome. There will always exist evil people with unseemly motives. What of the system that created this problem and empowered these GMO businesses? You mention it a little, speaking of IP and "laws of the land". Here, the US government is the enabler of this particular bad behavior. Without addressing that, you won't prevent the creation of future government-protected oligopolies.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 16 2017, @05:16PM (1 child)
I prefer to keep my evil people with unseemly motives at the bottom of the power pyramid, when possible. And, since that's not always possible, then keeping the pyramids smaller means that one evil capstone will have smaller effects on society as a whole, and as long as we maintain a level of "freedom to choose" then the serfs under the evil master can leave for greener pastures under a less evil master, shrinking the evil topped pyramids power even further.
The problem is when there are very few pyramids to choose from, and they are all topped by equally evil masters - often masters who get together and strike non-compete bargains to treat their serfs equally poorly.
You're partly right, but it's not only the US government that's enabling the bad behavior - the US is a major player in the game, but the game is global and the solution won't come from a sudden enlightenment of the US Legislature alone.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @06:36PM
you are a good serf, your current and future masters will be pleased of your ass-licking
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @01:51PM
Speak for yourself. You're the one ignoring outcomes. The rest of us have seen the outcomes from Monsanto etc and are choosing to not ignore them.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 16 2017, @09:47PM
Because its always preferable to have billions of people killed by the choice "pay me or else..." than have billions of people dying while trying to find their way to solve the hunger problem, right? In the first case there's a least a profit to go somewhere, in the second case, some may succeed and no money can be taken from them. </sarcasm>
Look mate, I wouldn't have a problem if Monsanto can keep its pollen on their patches, but to have it coming and asking me to pay for something that I didn't willingly do is as unconscionable as racketeering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday November 16 2017, @03:59PM (2 children)
I'm just seeing hate in your post. When "agri-business" has essentially eliminated hunger, to the extent production can vs problems with distribution, etc., while employing the fewest people and resources ever recorded to do it all you can do muster is spite, envy and hate. BernieBro?
If farmers want to replant their own seeds, nobody is forcing them to buy from big agro. Their problem is competing with low tech methods in general, it isn't just the lack of GMO seeds these farmers usually lack mechanization and other modern advances. Manual labor vs machines is usually a one sided fight that always ends with the machines winning.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @04:37PM
You're an idiot that doesn't actually understand the problems. As usual more of your rah rah go corporate murrica!!
I'm ashamed to live in the same country as you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 16 2017, @05:30PM
Ever spent time with farmers? Farmers who are trying to replant their own seeds, but are being sued by big agro because GMO pollen has blown into their field and now their seed tests positive for IP protected genes? Farmers who are constantly on the verge of quitting the business because they don't have billions in capital to weather market variability the way that the big corporations do? Farmers who produce products that markets desire, but are unable to deliver them without crazy uncompetitive markups in price because the distribution channels only support the rock bottom cost option?
It's an old story, but it hasn't changed for the better in a long long time. We've driven down the cost of food, yes, and clearly if you look around the US nobody needs to go hungry here anymore. Farmers with basic tractors and combines can meet our needs, but they can't compete with massively capitalized corporations that throw huge machines, GMOs and chemicals at a problem that was already solved with 20hp tractors. Yes, the huge machines are more efficient - at this point they're more efficient than necessary, and is the monoculture crop system really better for us all?
I'm not suggesting that we don't practice highly mechanized super-efficient mega-farming. I am suggesting that we don't completely drive the older methods out of business in the process. Diversity has value beyond what appears on a quarterly report. Lack of diversity in the food supply is a big risk, one that's not worth taking for the incremental gains in efficiency that it provides.
🌻🌻 [google.com]