Anti-GMO activist admits he was wrong

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Hrm. You know, I really have to respect a guy who can stand up and say, "I was wrong." Especially so when it's in such a public way.

Intellectual honesty in action.

Even after so publicly committing to the opposite viewpoint.

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Intellectual honesty in action.

Even after so publicly committing to the opposite viewpoint.

I guess the reason it's so impressive is the usual standard we see today is people doubling down on the wrong and hoping it somehow all pans out for the best.

See: Bigfootarianism.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I just re-read what I wrote. I'm not sure what's confusing you. Do you have more to say on this?

You left out the possibility of Martians invading and changing the legal system to allow Monsanto to take over all agriculture. That's why I was confused.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

You left out the possibility of Martians invading and changing the legal system to allow Monsanto to take over all agriculture. That's why I was confused.

Ah, so you don't think it's possible for large corporations to go patent trolling and then use those patents to crowd out the competition? I hope you're right. But if you're wrong, then you'd agree with me that it would be bad and you'd support a change in the law to prevent it?

ETA: Here's an article in Scientific American about the phenomenon.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...or-innovation/

Imagine if food or seeds were all patented. Would we want to see a world where this kind of litigation controlled our food source? I honestly don't understand your confusion.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Ah, so you don't think it's possible for large corporations to go patent trolling and then use those patents to crowd out the competition? I hope you're right. But if you're wrong, then you'd agree with me that it would be bad and you'd support a change in the law to prevent it?

ETA: Here's an article in Scientific American about the phenomenon.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...or-innovation/

Imagine if food or seeds were all patented. Would we want to see a world where this kind of litigation controlled our food source? I honestly don't understand your confusion.

Here's your original, bizarre scenario:

Quote:

But if Monsanto patented a genetic strain of corn, and then by some circumstance that corn came to dominate or there were some quirk in which legally they had a patent claim against farmers who were being forced to pay them and they couldn't avoid that...

How would they have a patent claim against farmers who didn't use their seeds? The patent claim would be against another seed company. Those cases happen now. And I'm not sure what you mean by their "corn (coming) to dominate". Dominate what?

Martians seem just as likely.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Here's your original, bizarre scenario:



How would they have a patent claim against farmers who didn't use their seeds? The patent claim would be against another seed company. Those cases happen now. And I'm not sure what you mean by their "corn (coming) to dominate". Dominate what?

Martians seem just as likely.

So you're ignoring my post above to reiterate your initial confusion, even after I've explained further? That it's not possible for other sellers of seed to be crowded out through litigation or other means? That it's not possible for seed to be contaminated and thus create a patent infringement? If you're right, great! I really hope you are! I'd love to be wrong about this. And I don't claim to know, since I am not a patent lawyer.

I'm trying to get you to admit that if you're wrong, and there existed a scenario, HOWEVER UNLIKELY YOU MAY FEEL IT IS, where food sourcing was being threatened by patent laws or monopolies, that you too would support putting profits as second to food source.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

So you're ignoring my post above to reiterate your initial confusion, even after I've explained further? That it's not possible for other sellers of seed to be crowded out through litigation or other means?

"Other means" like selling an inferior product perhaps? Patent lawsuits go on all the time, in all industries. I'm sure some companies go out of business because they can't defend the lawsuits. You realize that there are hundreds of seed companies, right? If Monsanto (or Pioneer or Bayer or DuPont - funny that they're never mentioned, just evil Monsanto) plan on getting rid of them through litigation, they better get going.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That it's not possible for seed to be contaminated and thus create a patent infringement?

Ah, the old Percy Schmeisser gambit.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

If you're right, great! I really hope you are! I'd love to be wrong about this. And I don't claim to know, since I am not a patent lawyer.

Right about what?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Right about what?

We just had a twenty minute discussion on this. If I recall, it got rather heated. Oh, wait. I was talking to a wall and I got you two confused because of your similar listening styles.

At least the wall tries to see what I'm saying.

[Graham2001]

Originally Posted by Travis

I have never understood the opposition to genetically modified foods. I continue to think it must originate with the scientifically illiterate who are scared of long words.

Indeed I can remember our Green Party & Greenpeace spreading claims that if you ate genetically modified food you would become genetically modified, however, they never made it clear just which comic book they got the idea from.

As for the item in the OP it's a case of too little, too late.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Hrm. You know, I really have to respect a guy who can stand up and say, "I was wrong." Especially so when it's in such a public way.

Me too. But just because he was wrong before, doesn't mean that he's right now.

Originally Posted by Mark Lynas

Well, life is nothing if not a learning process. As you get older you tend to realize just how complicated the world is and how simplistic solutions don’t really work...

Quote:

It’s blindingly obvious, actually, and I don’t know why it took me so long. The current deployment of nuclear power worldwide of 430 reactors reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 2 billion tons per year. And that really is the beginning and the end of the argument

Mark Lynas may have finally 'discovered science', but does he now really appreciate just how complicated the world is, or is he still trying to promote simplistic solutions?

Originally Posted by Mark Lynas

"the widespread use of nuclear power means we don’t have to cover so much of the land surface with wind farms"

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Me too. But just because he was wrong before, doesn't mean that he's right now.





Mark Lynas may have finally 'discovered science', but does he now really appreciate just how complicated the world is, or is he still trying to promote simplistic solutions?

Nuclear plants really do save carbon dioxide emissions and save land from being turned into wind farms. Land footprint is a major drawback to several renewable energy sources. Not boggled now?

[Jorghnassen]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

I just remember that wild, "natural" bananas are inedible and it's only through human breeding (since many many centuries) that they are, and they're a very healthy food, and, yeah...

As much as I like the Cavendish banana I've been eating for years, having clones of a single variety of seedless bananas is not the best way to have a healthy industry protected against the Panama disease... Even with genetic engineering, it's good to have access to the biodiversity provided by the rapidly disappearing wild bananas and older traditional cultivars.

Quote:

Nevermind that GMOs get more crop yields for less space, and therefore destroys the environment less.... ugh, "good for nature" indeed.

Actually, Round-Up ready crops don't have higher yield than the conventional version (e.g. this), the profitability to the farmer comes from saving money elsewhere (e.g. less labor), not higher yields. And if you look up government reports like this one, you realize that the effectiveness of GMOs varies from one place to the next (depending on local conditions). That's not to say that GMOs are bad, evil, or anything, but that one should remain critical of technologies and sellers of "one-size-fits-all" solutions. We should be critical of the claims of organic farming sellers and promoters, but so should we of the GMO crowd. Don't dismiss a side without digging further (to make sure you're not rejecting a strawman), don't embrace one without digging further either. That is what skepticism is about.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

As much as I like the Cavendish banana I've been eating for years, having clones of a single variety of seedless bananas is not the best way to have a healthy industry protected against the Panama disease... Even with genetic engineering, it's good to have access to the biodiversity provided by the rapidly disappearing wild bananas and older traditional cultivars.



Actually, Round-Up ready crops don't have higher yield than the conventional version (e.g. this), the profitability to the farmer comes from saving money elsewhere (e.g. less labor), not higher yields. And if you look up government reports like this one, you realize that the effectiveness of GMOs varies from one place to the next (depending on local conditions). That's not to say that GMOs are bad, evil, or anything, but that one should remain critical of technologies and sellers of "one-size-fits-all" solutions. We should be critical of the claims of organic farming sellers and promoters, but so should we of the GMO crowd. Don't dismiss a side without digging further (to make sure you're not rejecting a strawman), don't embrace one without digging further either. That is what skepticism is about.

^this^

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

As much as I like the Cavendish banana I've been eating for years, having clones of a single variety of seedless bananas is not the best way to have a healthy industry protected against the Panama disease... Even with genetic engineering, it's good to have access to the biodiversity provided by the rapidly disappearing wild bananas and older traditional cultivars.



Actually, Round-Up ready crops don't have higher yield than the conventional version (e.g. this), the profitability to the farmer comes from saving money elsewhere (e.g. less labor), not higher yields. And if you look up government reports like this one, you realize that the effectiveness of GMOs varies from one place to the next (depending on local conditions). That's not to say that GMOs are bad, evil, or anything, but that one should remain critical of technologies and sellers of "one-size-fits-all" solutions. We should be critical of the claims of organic farming sellers and promoters, but so should we of the GMO crowd. Don't dismiss a side without digging further (to make sure you're not rejecting a strawman), don't embrace one without digging further either. That is what skepticism is about.

We should do all of this while embracing science. The anti-GMO nutwads reject science.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

We just had a twenty minute discussion on this. If I recall, it got rather heated. Oh, wait. I was talking to a wall and I got you two confused because of your similar listening styles.

At least the wall tries to see what I'm saying.

Evasion noted.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Evasion noted.

Shrug. I explained myself, you made like you couldn't understand my point. I explained it further. You still made like you couldn't understand my point.

Diminishing returns and all that.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

If that's true,

What? You really don't know if that's true? You think Monsanto is forcing farmers to buy their seed and no one else's?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

What? You really don't know if that's true? You think Monsanto is forcing farmers to buy their seed and no one else's?

No, that's not what I meant. What I am saying, and I don't know how to be clearer about this, is that I think it would be a mistake to allow any company the ability to threaten the food supply due to patents or monopoly. If that is not currently possible, great, and I would agree. But that's not what started this line of questioning. I was asked the question "why shouldn't a company like Monsanto reap the rewards of their research?" and I responded that while I support profit and I support farmers, I would support limits to that if there ever arose a situation where their right to profit interfered with the food supply.

That is a general philosophy and policy that does not have to be happening NOW in order to have an opinion on it. We do this all the time in terms of scientific ethics. Should we clone humans? Should we abort fetuses if we detect certain genes? Even though we don't have those ethical dilemmas RIGHT NOW, we still can decide how we feel about them.

Again, for the kids in the back of the class, even if I grant everything you say about the current state of the GMO science and the current state of the law, GOING FORWARD, I do not consider the right to profit and the right to patent as sacrosanct and of greater importance than a stable and well regulated food supply for humanity.

I really don't understand what you guys don't understand about that, unless obtuseness is related to eating too many GMOs.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by WildCat

What? You really don't know if that's true? You think Monsanto is forcing farmers to buy their seed and no one else's?

The kids at the back of the class believe that. They spin all sorts of bizarre conspiracies about how Monsanto (never DuPont/Pioneer or Stine or any of the hundreds of other seed companies) could somehow take over the food supply and somehow force farmers to buy their products or force other seed companies to sell their products, or....something. Which is why I introduced the Martian angle. It's just as plausible.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

The kids at the back of the class believe that.

The kids at the back of the class are focusing on a straw man instead of discussing in good faith the actual point I have now made three times, which is why they are wearing the dunce caps.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Could such a scenario be that a pathogen appears/mutates that attacks all kinds of a plant, but a patented strain has resistance or immunity to it, resulting in that patented strain being the only surviving quantity of the plant? Like if someone had a patent on a strain of potatoes, and another blight struck that took out Idaho Golds (planted by just about everyone).

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Could such a scenario be that a pathogen appears/mutates that attacks all kinds of a plant, but a patented strain has resistance or immunity to it, resulting in that patented strain being the only surviving quantity of the plant? Like if someone had a patent on a strain of potatoes, and another blight struck that took out Idaho Golds (planted by just about everyone).

A patent whose enforcement turns out to be against the public interest could presumably be voided, just like any other contract. Remember, as a last resort the government still has plenty of guns if any corporation gets too uppity.

What would be more likely to happen is that the government would institute price controls such that seeds would have to be bought from the patent holders/licensees, but at prices that would ensure the continuation of the necessary food supply.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

A patent whose enforcement turns out to be against the public interest could presumably be voided, just like any other contract. Remember, as a last resort the government still has plenty of guns if any corporation gets too uppity.

What would be more likely to happen is that the government would institute price controls such that seeds would have to be bought from the patent holders/licensees, but at prices that would ensure the continuation of the necessary food supply.

Which is the hypothetical I was addressing.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

Actually, Round-Up ready crops don't have higher yield than the conventional version (e.g. this), the profitability to the farmer comes from saving money elsewhere (e.g. less labor), not higher yields..

But round up ready crops do have less of an environmental impact (which seemed to be the main point of the post), and other GM crops like bt-corn DO have higher yields.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Which is the hypothetical I was addressing.

I imagine when GM patents become more sophisticated and interdependent something like this would develop and the relevant court rulings (see the link to the orange book standard at the bottom) would apply. No need to invalidate a patent, just force reasonable licensing terms.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

I imagine when GM patents become more sophisticated and interdependent something like this would develop and the relevant court rulings (see the link to the orange book standard at the bottom) would apply. No need to invalidate a patent, just force reasonable licensing terms.

Agreed. And if that happened, the profits of the company in question would be of secondary importance, behind the sanctity of the food pipeline. I'm surprised this is even controversial.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Agreed. And if that happened, the profits of the company in question would be of secondary importance, behind the sanctity of the food pipeline. I'm surprised this is even controversial.

The purpose of patents is to "promote the progress of science and the arts" ... profits are just the means.

[Jorghnassen]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

But round up ready crops do have less of an environmental impact (which seemed to be the main point of the post), and other GM crops like bt-corn DO have higher yields.

The point I was making is that you can't equate GM with higher yields. That's the sales pitch, but it's not always true (and it's demonstrably false for some very popular GM crops). Again, I'm not saying GMO's are bad, just that the reality of them is more complex than the polarized, falsely-dichotomized GMOs versus organic farming debates. Agriculture is a more complex issue than this. World hunger is a more complex issue this. We can't just say: "GMOs = science = better; organic = woo = bad" or "GMOs = Monsanto = evil; organic = environmentally friendly = good".

The whole framework of the problems and solutions deserves to be examined in depth, we can't just accept pre-conceived ideas about these issues. Bt is a classic example I like to bring up as a devil's advocate to either side (to show that industrial agriculture and organic farming aren't as far apart as imagined): Bt is a certified organic pesticide, allowed in organic farming. It's also the natural pesticide in the controversial Bt corn which (allegedly) had a negative impact on monarch butterflies population. Bt corn was created for easier (possibly cheaper) pest control, but it also affected non-pest species. Environmental impact (if that's what we're aiming to reduce) is complex to measure, and fraught with unintended consequences.

[!Kaggen]

Such rational posts should not go unrecognized