|
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the loonier poo poo about GE crops etc was cooked up by some think tank somewhere and disseminated to distract from and discredit legitimate concerns about the very real issues that Duck Monster just described. Same goes for a lot of crackpot poo poo, I see very real value for those who profit from these things in generating false controversy. Another example I can think of would be the ridiculous vaccine conspiracy theories and opposition; instead of legitimately criticizing the way that lifesaving and otherwise crucial developments and discoveries are privatized and hoarded by first world corporations etc for profit making and suggesting our responsibility as human beings should be to freely share these innovations to minimize human suffering, you have public figures spreading falsehoods and diverting dissent into harmful very simple fabrications that are easier to latch onto than meaningful but complex and "anti-american" analysis and sentiment. Paranoia imo is an extremely powerful resource tapped by capital for diverting and neutralizing meaningful dissent by appealing to simple thought terminating clichés and the general lack of understanding that makes simpler albeit completely wrong explanations or interpretations more accessible to gobble up as opposed to the general effort required to put together institutional criticism that doesn't require breaking with scientific reality.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:I wouldn't be surprised if some of the loonier poo poo about GE crops etc was cooked up by some think tank somewhere and disseminated to distract from and discredit legitimate concerns about the very real issues that Duck Monster just described. Same goes for a lot of crackpot poo poo, I see very real value for those who profit from these things in generating false controversy. Another example I can think of would be the ridiculous vaccine conspiracy theories and opposition; instead of legitimately criticizing the way that lifesaving and otherwise crucial developments and discoveries are privatized and hoarded by first world corporations etc for profit making and suggesting our responsibility as human beings should be to freely share these innovations to minimize human suffering, you have public figures spreading falsehoods and diverting dissent into harmful very simple fabrications that are easier to latch onto than meaningful but complex and "anti-american" analysis and sentiment. Paranoia imo is an extremely powerful resource tapped by capital for diverting and neutralizing meaningful dissent by appealing to simple thought terminating clichés and the general lack of understanding that makes simpler albeit completely wrong explanations or interpretations more accessible to gobble up as opposed to the general effort required to put together institutional criticism that doesn't require breaking with scientific reality. So some sort of meta-conspiracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:In the real world this is a great set up for loving over some of the world's most vulnerable populations by transforming them into 21st century share-croppers. It sucks that the benefits of genetically-engineered crops are limited to the farmers who can pay (and keep paying) for them, but it's hardly a "try once and you're hooked" situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Well, except that you can always go back to using regular seeds. The farmers who can pay will outcompete the farmers who can't or won't, and then they'll buy their competitors out to help their profit margin. This is how capitalism spreads efficient technology, and why the dichotomy between use value and exchange value cannot be resolved within capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Well, except that you can always go back to using regular seeds. Excpet if they cross pollinate with normal seeds or you have some in amongst your crop by accident you are breaking their copywrite and will be hosed every which way possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Well, except that you can always go back to using regular seeds. Easier said than done. Monsanto actually go after people who don't comply with the program with lawsuits that whilst might be baseless can't be defended against by people with no cash. Food INC pointed out the US example where Monsanto just sue the poo poo out of companies that provide seed saving services where theres even a remote possibility on of their clients was a monsanto customer. Its enough to have put most out of business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:Excpet if they cross pollinate with normal seeds or you have some in amongst your crop by accident you are breaking their copywrite and will be hosed every which way possible. Enjoy posted:The farmers who can pay will outcompete the farmers who can't or won't, and then they'll buy their competitors out to help their profit margin. This is how capitalism spreads efficient technology, and why the dichotomy between use value and exchange value cannot be resolved within capitalism. duck monster posted:Easier said than done. Monsanto actually go after people who don't comply with the program with lawsuits that whilst might be baseless can't be defended against by people with no cash. Food INC pointed out the US example where Monsanto just sue the poo poo out of companies that provide seed saving services where theres even a remote possibility on of their clients was a monsanto customer. Its enough to have put most out of business. edit: I'm guessing you're referring to Maurice Parr's seed cleaning service, not actually seed saving. Seed cleaning is pretty much just extraction of the seeds themselves so that the farmer can store them. Here's the relevant court document pertaining to his complaint. Particularly, note the truly onerous injunction the court held against a man who actively worked to persuade farmers that they were permitted to save and replant Monsanto seeds when he knew that they were not. quote:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a permanent injunction issue pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §283 and Rule 65 enjoining the following activities of Maurice Parr d/b/a Custom Seed and Grain Cleaning: If points 3 or 4 seem extreme, keep in mind that approximately 90% of the soybeans planted in Indiana are Roundup Ready-variety. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
Self-pollinating crops like canola have very heavy pollen grains which settle quickly and are also susceptible to dessication. As a result their pollination radius is highly limited, and a buffer space of a few meters is quite sufficient, given that pollen count drops off exponentially with distance. I worked in a plant genetics lab on the university way back when, and one day Percy Schmeiser gave a talk. As expected three of us lab assistants went to his talk and asked some very pointed questions since he clearly got a lot of the science wrong. The man also claimed that "terminator technology" could potentially sterilize creatures up the trophic chain, like bees or birds or your babies. There are legitimate concerns regarding GMOs, but the most prominent ones that are tossed around are utter bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 10:41
|
|
|
Its not the outcomes that have been the problem in these cases, it was the actual costs of the litigation itself. And again, as I said, the (pseudo)scientific claims are red herrings, its the economic and political problems of patented food that are the problems, notably that of creating dependency for third world farmers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 10:48
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Its not the outcomes that have been the problem in these cases, it was the actual costs of the litigation itself. I'm amenable to discussing those real problems, but that wasn't really my point in bringing up GMOs. My point was to address the pseudoscience used in first-world nations to fearmonger against GMOs, but I guess my ultimate goal would be for these same people to discuss the real issues of economics and geopolitics in regards to agriculture and business rather than use bullshit scare tactics. More importantly, I don't think the pseudoscience is a red herring because it has begun to spread to nations that actually need the GMOs to survive. http://articles.latimes.com/2002/aug/28/world/fg-zambia28 Environmentalists from first-world nations have used pseudoscience to convince third-world governments to reject food aid from the US and other nations due to fears about health risks from eating the GM crops. People are literally starving and pseudoscience is preventing them from getting access to food aid that would keep them from dying. This is why we need substantive research and evidence to put the pseudoscience to bed, afterwords we can get to work on solving the problems of economics and politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Its not the outcomes that have been the problem in these cases, it was the actual costs of the litigation itself. quote:In 2002, Monsanto sent a letter by certified mail to Parr explaining that it was the owner of the ‘605 patent and that Roundup Ready crop seed was covered by the ‘605 patent. This letter also explained that a limited-use license was required to use the crop seed and that saving a crop grown from the licensed seed for planting or selling for replanting was an infringement. The letter stated that Monsanto had information that Parr’s seed cleaning business facilitated seed replanting, and further that Parr encouraged and induced growers to clean and replant soybeans which he knew contained Monsanto’s patented technology. Finally, the notice requested that Parr cease any actions that induced infringement of the ‘605 patent and specifically asked Parr to stop: Despite this assurance, Parr went on to provide seed cleaning for a number of farmers using Roundup Ready soybeans, and continued to encourage them to save and replant the patented seeds. quote:At some point in 2003 or 2004, Williams testified that he asked the defendant about cleaning Roundup Ready soybeans, and was informed by the defendant that it was permissible for a farmer to save Roundup Ready soybeans for his own use. After this discussion, Williams felt that it would be safe to save, clean and replant Roundup Ready soybeans. Williams saved some of his 2005 Roundup Ready soybean crop, had it cleaned by the defendant, and planted that saved seed in the 2006 growing season. quote:Fred and Jim Inskeep testified that they were convinced by Parr that it was permissible to save Roundup Ready soybeans and replant them on their farm. While it's unfortunate that there is a cost to having professional representation in a lawsuit, that's the way the system works. Are you suggesting that Monsanto should just ignore the guy convincing other people to violate the patent so he can get their seed cleaning business? ShadowCatboy posted:The man also claimed that "terminator technology" could potentially sterilize creatures up the trophic chain, like bees or birds or your babies. There are legitimate concerns regarding GMOs, but the most prominent ones that are tossed around are utter bullshit. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Nov 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Sorry, but if you actively try to undermine someone's patent, you kind of open yourself up to lawsuits. I don't see any way around that. It's not like Monsanto jumped straight to suing, either. From the court filing I linked earlier: Its almost as if the ability to hold a patent on such things is in and of itself considered immoral by some people? Nobody is arguing that they are breaking the law, that is of no concern. The ability to commit all sorts of malicious acts is often enshrined in our legal systems, the problem is institutionalized injustice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Its almost as if the ability to hold a patent on such things is in and of itself considered immoral by some people? Nobody is arguing that they are breaking the law, that is of no concern. The ability to commit all sorts of malicious acts is often enshrined in our legal systems, the problem is institutionalized injustice.  So we go from GMOs turning farmers into 21st century sharecroppers to "Really, it's the patent itself that's immoral," and basic patent protection being a "malicious act."You want to see institutionalized injustice, check out the Cops on the Beat thread. A company offering a product with a single-season growing permission doesn't even come close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
I'm very familiar with that thread and police corruption in general, but that's injustice carried out by an institution, not injustice that is itself the institutionalized subject. I would say that contributing to the continued suffering and starvation of millions of people for profit is pretty disgusting and at least "comes close" to the problems with police in my opinion. Anyway it is actually quite possible to be outraged at all sources of injustice simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Ok, can anyone explain to be why any farmer would want to use future filial of hybrid seed instead of continuing to use new F1 every year? The entire point of using hybrid seed is because the F1 seeds all have the same traits that you find desirable. The F2 on seed to no have the consistency of those same traits. F3 and on are less consistent. And that removes the goal of ever using hybrid seed in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:I would say that contributing to the continued suffering and starvation of millions of people for profit is pretty disgusting and at least "comes close" to the problems with police in my opinion. I mean, if farmers are allowed to keep and replant GMO seeds without payment, it seems quite straightforward that no private company will ever invest any effort in creating GM crops, at least not without some variant of the aforementioned terminator technologies. There's no potential for profit if all you can ever count on selling is a single seed packet per farmer. The alternative to "private GM crops have use licensing" is not "private GM crops can be freely used," it's "private GM crops don't exist." Mind you, I personally would like to see a lot more government and NGO production of beneficially modified, free-to-use crops, a la Golden rice. But suggesting that Monsanto is an evil company for pursuing basic patent enforcement seems insane to me. And, of course, even when such crops are produced, groups like Greenpeace still advocate against them. karthun posted:Ok, can anyone explain to be why any farmer would want to use future filial of hybrid seed instead of continuing to use new F1 every year? The entire point of using hybrid seed is because the F1 seeds all have the same traits that you find desirable. The F2 on seed to no have the consistency of those same traits. F3 and on are less consistent. And that removes the goal of ever using hybrid seed in the first place. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:Its almost as if the ability to hold a patent on such things is in and of itself considered immoral by some people? Nobody is arguing that they are breaking the law, that is of no concern. The ability to commit all sorts of malicious acts is often enshrined in our legal systems, the problem is institutionalized injustice. Well, if you are going to make an assertion about patents like that, why not add to the thread by posting information about patent law and how, according to you, it is immoral and needs to be reformed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:They wouldn't want to use hybrid seed, they'd want to use pure seed from the genetically-modified plant. The "pure" (what ever that means) seen from the genetically-modified plant is called F2 hybrid. Assuming that the genetically-modified traits that you want are domoniant 25% of that F2 hybrid do not have that trait that you want. Once when you have two traits that you desire, only 56%, the 9 of the 9 : 3 : 3 : 1, of the F2 plants will have both of those traits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
karthun posted:The "pure" (what ever that means) seen from the genetically-modified plant is called F2 hybrid. Assuming that the genetically-modified traits that you want are domoniant 25% of that F2 hybrid do not have that trait that you want. Once when you have two traits that you desire, only 56%, the 9 of the 9 : 3 : 3 : 1, of the F2 plants will have both of those traits. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:You want to see institutionalized injustice, check out the Cops on the Beat thread. A company offering a product with a single-season growing permission doesn't even come close. Unless you've now got entire sections of some of the poorest farmers in the world under your thumb and paying you rent to do what they had done for free for countless generations. In that case, no a cops batton in the head really isn't even in the same league.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Unless you've now got entire sections of some of the poorest farmers in the world under your thumb and paying you rent to do what they had done for free for countless generations. Strudel Man posted:Well, except that you can always go back to using regular seeds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Well, unless the original seed is homozygotic for the desired traits. I guess I assumed it would be...? Why wouldn't you would use the homozygotic trans-genetic plant to backcross with the non TG elite parent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:Why wouldn't you would use the homozygotic trans-genetic plant to backcross with the non TG elite parent. And sure, if the transgenetic plant were indeed inferior in this fashion, that would make sense. I don't know that it's obvious it would be, however. And having a modified strain that breeds true for its added traits has its own obvious advantages - if, perhaps, not advantages that the company distributing seed would want users to have. In any case, I don't actually know whether the GM seed that Monsanto sells is homozygotic for the traits of interest or not. I suppose that question of fact would be the relevant one, rather than speculation as to what they should, theoretically, be selling. edit: According to this, it looks like they do backcrossing early on, pick out the homozygous plants, and use those for seed multiplication. So I believe the seeds sold should themselves be homozygous as well. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:12
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I mean, if farmers are allowed to keep and replant GMO seeds without payment, it seems quite straightforward that no private company will ever invest any effort in creating GM crops, at least not without some variant of the aforementioned terminator technologies. There's no potential for profit if all you can ever count on selling is a single seed packet per farmer. The alternative to "private GM crops have use licensing" is not "private GM crops can be freely used," it's "private GM crops don't exist." I don't give a flying poo poo about profits, I care about feeding people. Its entirely possible for such things to be owned collectively and freely shared for the actual benefit of feeding as many mouths as possible. The profit motive necessitates a conflict of interest, and personally I place priority on the well being of the global population over that of More Money For Rich Fucks. Agribusiness profits don't go into the pockets of scientists, the same research could be conducted the same way but more benevolently elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:I don't give a flying poo poo about profits, I care about feeding people. Much like healthcare, utilities and public transportation, it's generally a good idea to have your food production managed by entities that aren't trying to make a profit. Monsanto should be nationalized and destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
Mr. Self Destruct posted:I don't give a flying poo poo about profits, I care about feeding people. Its entirely possible for such things to be owned collectively and freely shared for the actual benefit of feeding as many mouths as possible. The profit motive necessitates a conflict of interest, and personally I place priority on the well being of the global population over that of More Money For Rich Fucks. Agribusiness profits don't go into the pockets of scientists, the same research could be conducted the same way but more benevolently elsewhere. a lovely poster posted:Much like healthcare, utilities and public transportation, it's generally a good idea to have your food production managed by entities that aren't trying to make a profit. Monsanto should be nationalized and destroyed.  Why destroyed? They have a great deal of practical and organizational experience in the production of new plant varieties. Why not nationalized and reoriented to the production of generally beneficial crops?
Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Well, except that you can always go back to using regular seeds. I'm by no means an expert here but my understanding is that in addition to buying the seeds you need to buy all sorts of fertilizers and equipment in order to get a sufficiently high yield from your crop to justify the switch-over. Of course in Econ101 land this isn't an issue, but in practice its easy to invest in GM seeds based on unrealistic expectations about crop yield only to find yourself locked into a dependent relationship with the person who sold you the seeds. Plus if you use modified seeds one year and were unhappy with your performance then I assume it'd be virtually impossible to switch back to traditional seeds the next year without inadvertently allowing for at least the possibility that some of the GM seeds will get mixed with some of the "regular" seeds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm by no means an expert here but my understanding is that in addition to buying the seeds you need to buy all sorts of fertilizers and equipment in order to get a sufficiently high yield from your crop to justify the switch-over. Fertilizers and equipment are a side issue to this - of course they can make huge differences to productivity, but they do that regardless of whether you're using standard or GM seeds. Now, admittedly, roundup ready plants and commercial harvesting equipment can be particularly valuable in combination with one another - if you're using a massive harvester, it's nice not to have a substantial number of weeds mixed in with your crops. But fertilizers and equipment are by no means uniquely necessary for GM crops. And if you find that the GM crops aren't all they cracked up to be after that first year, they're still quite useful for regular seeds. quote:Of course in Econ101 land this isn't an issue, but in practice its easy to invest in GM seeds based on unrealistic expectations about crop yield only to find yourself locked into a dependent relationship with the person who sold you the seeds. quote:Plus if you use modified seeds one year and were unhappy with your performance then I assume it'd be virtually impossible to switch back to traditional seeds the next year without inadvertently allowing for at least the possibility that some of the GM seeds will get mixed with some of the "regular" seeds. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
So has anyone got any sugeestions to get through to this brick wall:quote:First, poeple havent been forced into debt to "maintain" their standard of living or anything close. By and large debt has come from luxuries like cars, 50 inch plasma screen tvs and foreign holidays. Bearing in mind this is just after me and some people were talking about 'The Flaw' program which covers this stuff. I dont think he watched it. Bascially "work hard and dont worry about what everyone else is doing. All the stuff about the rich benefitting most for the past 30 years is just not true!" I am unsure how much evidence this guy is willing to read since anything more than 3 paragraphs is considered a rant. Bare in mind I dont care if he changes his mind, but people reading might need something useful. Please and thanks. Ive said so far quote:What is your opinion wage stagnation? If no one can afford to buy the commodities we produce (because we wont earn enough for these new prices you envisage happening if the cost of production goes up) why employ so many people to make them for one, and two what are we all supposed to do instead when we dont have the means to buy food, heat our homes etc because people lose jobs and have no way to earn a living? Im trying to, in part, ignore where he is wrong and make him see that this is still a bad thing. Edit: Ive changed my post a bit to be more clear, Im tired and should probably leave it until Ive rested. Touchdown Boy fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:And thus we come full circle. The end result is, if they stop participating, monsanto takes the loving farm. This has led to spates of suicides as farmers realise they have become destitute and have no way to service the debts except give up farms held in the family often for centuries. Here, have a video about farmer suicides over monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA 'scuse the annoying editing. Its the first result on the list. And keep in mind, in places like india , for certain crops like cotton, you cant actually GET non GM seeds, meaning that its not possible anymore to avoid monsanto unless you've kept seeds from your traditional crop, which you probably havent if you have switched to monsanto. This poo poo is predatory. Food should not be monopolized by a single profit driven company, especially in economies as fragile as india. e: Yes nationalizing monsanto would be good. There are genuine benefits to be had from GM if its conducted by ethical scientists not unethical businessmen fucks. Really actually, this research should be done by universities for the public good. duck monster fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
duck monster posted:If only was it that simple. See buying the seeds and pesticides isn't cheap. So monsanto loans the farmers money to invest in the infrastructure in return for mortgages on the farms. The problem is, the contracts dont necessarily allow for the farmers to just pull out when the debts start piling up too high. We're talking functionally iliterate farmers without business smarts in dealing with mega-corps here lured by travlling salesmen, and flashy adverts featuring top bollywood actors and the like.  Monsanto is not a financial services company. They do not offer loans to anyone. They seem to have provided grants to independent microcredit programs, but as far as I can tell, that is the extent of their involvement with anything debt-related. Is it really their fault if someone bets the farm, so to speak, with a third party on purchasing their products? Is it Ford's fault if I can't make my car payments?Not to mention the suggestion here that Indian farmers are too stupid (or perhaps more charitably, too uneducated) to be given the option of licensing GM crops, lest they lose everything and kill themselves. That's rather charmingly paternalistic. quote:And keep in mind, in places like india , for certain crops like cotton, you cant actually GET non GM seeds, meaning that its not possible anymore to avoid monsanto unless you've kept seeds from your traditional crop, which you probably havent if you have switched to monsanto. Here's an Indian company selling cotton seeds that also exports, listing five of the varieties they sell. The 'Bt' varieties, SBCH-284 Bt and SBCH-292 Bt, are transgenic - the others are regular hybridized strains. And this is a company that bills itself on biotech. You really need to start examining the accuracy of the information you're working from. This is ridiculous. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:So has anyone got any sugeestions to get through to this brick wall: Allow me to pick this apart: quote:First, poeple havent been forced into debt to "maintain" their standard of living or anything close. By and large debt has come from luxuries like cars, 50 inch plasma screen tvs and foreign holidays. This is your typical no citation Welfare Queen bullshit. Considering that areas of debt like student loans are over $1 trillion, one expects a good portion of Americans are not, in fact, spending their money on 50 inch plasma screen TVs. (And, again: what the gently caress is his source for this? His poor neighbor?) quote:Second, a lot of wealth has indeed went up the way, but a lot of it has went to places like China.  Income gains of the various percentiles of American society, nabbed from Wikipedia. America still has the highest number of millionaires in the world. quote:What then? I will take a huge stab in the dark and say thats nothing at all to do with the banks or the rich people you point the finger at. Incorrect. The recent financial crisis devastated millions of Americans (and millions of people across the rest of the world), costing them their homes and their livelihoods. The wealth that the corporations and top earners of the financial system are hoarding is wealth that could otherwise be used to provide Americans with a reasonable standard of living. (And if he wants to pull out some bullshit about how they "earned it," get him to watch Inside Job. I've never been more furious at the end of a movie than after watching that.) quote:The answer.... you and i pay more tax, buy less garbage (i have like 4 pairs of footie boots, many in the world have barely 1 pair of shoes) and work hard. The solution is to tax the richest earners and biggest corporations more; reduce the tax burden on the middle class; return to heavy financial regulation; and heavily prioritize education and health care. Basically, if you have one message to tell him, it's this: stop getting your information from conjecture and right-wing media conglomerates. Everything he's said here (except for the fact that manufacturing jobs have escaped America and probably aren't coming back, which is true) is based on some fantasy-land perception of how the world works. Vermain fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 07:45
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Here's an Indian company selling cotton seeds that also exports, listing five of the varieties they sell. The 'Bt' varieties, SBCH-284 Bt and SBCH-292 Bt, are transgenic - the others are regular hybridized strains. And this is a company that bills itself on biotech. IIRC Monsanto still requires a 20% non-bt refuge in order to even license the BT seed. In regards to your previous post, elite parents refers to the parent plant who is the elite, the current hybrid that has the highest yield. There is a yield drag on both BT and RR genes. First gen BT was 15-20% but now are down to 5-10% yield drag. Traditionally you reduce the yield drag by taking the BT hybrid and backcrossing it with its non-BT parent. You can do this over and over again until you get the yield back up to the point that it is commercially viable to release, however it is no longer possible for this next gen BT hybrid to still be homozygotic. I do not know the exact process that Monsanto uses to decrease thei yield drag but I do find it unlikely that the current-gen GM hybrid seed are homozygotic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 11:19
|
|
|
karthun posted:I do not know the exact process that Monsanto uses to decrease thei yield drag but I do find it unlikely that the current-gen GM hybrid seed are homozygotic. Although it doesn't say it, I have to imagine that they cull anything that doesn't have gene expression during the backcrossing process, or else they'd have barely any transgenetic presence left. edit: Hah, flex is not the same word as flax. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
Thanks Vermain, some of that stuff may ave stuck (though he has since moved the subject on to something semi related now that we both agree on). Also someone else mentioned one good way to decrease the disparity in wages could be to offer dividend paying stock options to all workers. This sounds very Socialist to me and wouldnt be favoured at all by big companies etc I would imagine... but I suppose it would help at least a little. ps Last time I checked this wasnt a thread for discussing GM Crops or Monsanto amongst ourselves...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The most popular variety of genetically-modified crop, the one that most of the legal wrangling is over, is Monsanto's "Roundup-Ready," which actually exists for a number of different plants. All it does is render the plant highly resistant to Roundup-brand herbicide, so that you can douse your fields in weed-killer without killing your crop. I confess that the further this discussion proceeds the less relevant the fact that the seeds in question are GM seems to matter. I'm sorta swamped with school work this week so I'm not in a position to dig up more specific information on how these arrangements might contribute to a dependent relationship on the part of the families. Either way I'm read to concede that this is an issue that should be separated from the question of how desirable GM food is in general. Touchdown Boy posted:So has anyone got any sugeestions to get through to this brick wall: You may find this paper, "Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy" helpful. If you don't have access to the pdf then you can access an hour long video about a talk given by Elizabeth Warren, "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class", where she outlines in very precise terms what the financial situation facing regular families. Starting at 20.00 she starts discussing where families are now spending the majority of their incomes. Watch these videos and you should have ample statistics from a well respected academic source demonstrating how housing, medical costs and cars (dual income households usually require multiple cars) are the primary expenses facing most families. Note that Warren also identifies that taxes on families are higher these days so there's at least something here that will help make the overall message more palatable to your friend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
If you're friend is inclined to assume people like Warren are biased then you could always try showing him private corporate research that verifies that these trends really exist. A couple years ago Citigroup wrote this charming little memoCitigroup posted:The latest Survey of Consumer Finance data was released Friday 24th of February. It shows that the rich in the US continue to be in great shape. We thought this was good time to bang the drum on plutonomy. Back in October, we coined the term ‘Plutonomy’ (The Global Investigator, Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances, October 14 2005). Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers of demand in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries. Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in the plutonomy countries. Also, new media dissemination technologies like internet downloading, cable and satellite TV, have disproportionately increased the audiences, and hence gains to “superstars” – think golf, soccer, and baseball players, music/TV and movie icons, fashion models, designers, celebrity chefs etc. These “content” providers, the tech whizzes who own the pipes and distribution, the lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge in converting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor, all contribute to plutonomy. Indeed, David Gordon and Ian Dew Becker of the NBER demonstrate that the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US. ( See “Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income”, NBER Working Paper 11842, December 2005). By contrast, in other countries such as Japan, France and the Netherlands (read much of continental Europe), egalitarianism has kept the rich to a similar share of income and wealth The advertising industry has made similar conclusions: quote:The American middle class, concludes a new study from the ad industry’s top trade journal, has essentially become irrelevant. In a deeply unequal America, if you don’t make $200,000, you don’t matter. Corporate America is well aware that the age of mass affluence is on course to end in the next decade or two and they are planning accordingly. As the Citigroup memo illustrates, the wealthy themselves are well aware that pro-government policies are instrumental to maintaining their high incomes. Meanwhile Corporate America doesn't seem to share your friends idea that regular families are well positioned to go on a spending binge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Did you look at the link I posted a bit upthread? Chart 5.1.2 on page 16 strongly suggests that they are, saying that they use "BC5F4 Seed that is homozygous for RRF gene" for seed multiplication - five (!) generations of backcrossing, three of self-fertilization, and then homozygous gene selection. I only work with grains so I cant speak with personal experience with BC5F4 cotton. What I can say is that RRFlex is a stack of the and BT. It looks to be an early generation (Filial 4 to be exact). It does seem like the Roundup Ready Flex does have some significant yield drag. To reduce that yield drag Monsanto will have to cross the BC5F4 with an elite variety. This will make the RRF genes no longer homozygous. They fact that they are selecting for RRF homozygosity over other traits makes me think that Monsanto are seeking a variety that can be crossed to provide the farmer with the hybrid that will provide him with an ideal crop to his growing conditions. But this is honestly speculation on my part. Now none of this really matters because a farmer can not control that future filial's will continue to be homozygous. The 20% non RRF reserve will provide enough of a chance to introduce non RRF genes. karthun fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
karthun posted:I only work with grains so I cant speak with personal experience with BC5F4 cotton. What I can say is that RRFlex is a stack of the and BT. It looks to be an early generation (Filial 4 to be exact). It does seem like the Roundup Ready Flex does have some significant yield drag. To reduce that yield drag Monsanto will have to cross the BC5F4 with an elite variety. Crossing the BC5F4 would just put them at BC6F1, which I have to imagine would have little yield improvement over BC5. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Nov 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Strudel Man posted:But BC5 is already a cross with the elite variety five...actually, six times over. The initial RRF is crossed with elite variety to give them F1 heterozygous seed, which they then cross again with the elite variety to give them BC1 (which I suppose would then be half heterozygous and half non-carriers). Toss out the non-carriers, and cross again with elite variety to get BC2...repeat until you get the BC5, self-fertilize for a few generations to spread the genes around, and then pull out the homozygous resulting plants by, I guess, gene testing? Not sure how they tell which ones are homozygous, but it clearly says that they select those. Ya, I agree with much if not all that you said. It is just strange to me why they are still seeking homozygous RRF genes unless they plan on doing more plant breeding in the future to give us more hybrids. None the less my point still stands that the non GM reserve will provide plenty of non GM genes so that in future generations there will be no way that the farmer will get the specific traits that he is looking for if the farmer were to save the seed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2011 16:37
|
|