h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Being the inventors of LSD surely means that they are into Flower Power in more ways than most

Biochemical weapon? I thought Agent Orange was in Reservoir Dogs...

B

>> a Krupps coffee maker <<

And I take Aspirin and wish I still had my BMW
and I don't like Sebastian Vettel because he's
young and arrogant but nationalism isn't really
the issue.

It's a question of corporate indifference to the
outcomes of untested new technology.


~jwf~

>> It's a question of corporate indifference to the outcomes of untested new technology. << ~jwf~

I agree ~jwf~ and if these corporations are so all fired up to be considered "persons" with all the perks of being "persons"
then they should also be allowed the penalties for misconduct ascribed to persons of unethical bent.

Put them in jail, I say. Too big to fail? I think we would survive their absence! I am certainly willing to try.
And I wager many others will be, also, especially when they are given all the facts of the unethical acts.

Hungary Hungary Hippos!
http://worldtruth.tv/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields-2/


~jwf~

"It's a question of corporate indifference to the outcomes of untested new technology."

I'll repeat my earlier point. That is a failure of the regulatory failure, and inherent flaws in our model of market capitalism, and **NOT** a problem of technology per se.

Technology can, and does, improve lives. GM can be one of these.

FB

Off topic Aside

I found this report from over ten years ago reporting the first batch of thirty genetically modified humans, they had DNA from three adults. As far as I can tell the original egg cell had been given a booster --> mitochondria from a third adult was injected into the cytoplasm of the cell. The cell was then fertilised, allowed to develop and then implanted back into the mother. The children that were born were tested aged around two, and their cells were of course found to contain DNA from three adults (directly). Mitichondria have their own DNA set which enables them to reproduce "independently" from the main nucleus of the cell. It is partly for this reason why it is believed that the ancesters of "mitochondria" and "nucleated cells" had an independent existance before coming together in a symbiotic union one or two billion years ago (??). Mitochondria greatly improves the efficiency of cells to extract the chemical energy contained within glucose, a basic product of photosynthesis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1312708.stm

off topic aside.

An alternative and to my mind rather more believable version of events.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/02/exposing-the-anti-gmo-legal-machine-the-real-story-behind-the-so-called-monsanto-protection-act/

>> were tested aged around two << the report actually says two one year olds were genetically tested ...

Off topic aside

I read somewhere that the job of a politician is to raise enough money (and supporters) for their next election campaign, and when voted in to keep these supporters "happy" so that they will continue to receive their support. Part of this quid pro quo is for the politician to keep their supporters informed of potential legislation and to aim to influence relevant legislation through the addition of "provisions" and "loopholes" that can be used by their supporters.

off topic aside.

"I don't like Sebastian Vettel because he's
young and arrogant but nationalism isn't really
the issue."

Then why bring Vettel up?

My point, which as so often has swung right past your head is this. Why does Monsanto making weapons half a century ago matter now, to this debate? I then used Krupps as an example to back up my point.

This is basic stuff Squiggles. It's not hard to keep up with.

Question for jwf (and others?): Are there any similarities between Monsanto and Microsoft when it comes to the business model?

Not sure about the business model but they certainly attract a similar type of hatred from bandwagon jumpers, people who can't think for themselves and conspiracy theorists.
I'm guess *some* people have looked into their practices properly (rather than just believe articles/blogs on the internet that say what they want to hear) and come to their own conclusions but I'm guess that's the small minority.

Monsanto are an interesting company - I've had a few dealings with them.

Fundamentally, their business model is the same as Dow, Syngenta, Basf, Pioneer etc. The interesting thing is that they don't much pretend to be nice - they're happy to wear a black hat, like Phillip Morris or Esso in different fields.

The others all claim to be tolerant to diversity in agriculture, to accept that consumers may not want GMO etc - although it may or may not be true. Monsanto are like - it's legal, we're right, get out of our way.

As for genetic modification - like all technologies, it can be used for bad or for good... It's not the same as standard plant breeding though. Not that you can do radically different things, simply that you can get there a lot faster...

sprout

Can anyone point me to an easy to read article that describes patent law with regard to genetically modified organisms, that includes a brief history of the matter within the context of national and international law?

>> Why does Monsanto making weapons half a century ago
matter now, to this debate? <<

Because their GM seed crops are resistant to, and require,
a specific pesticide/herbicide called 'Round Up', which is
basically the same product as agent orange with a new name.

>> I then used Krupps as an example to back up my point. <<

Which I thought was an unfair comparison and an attempt to
drag national prejudice into an argument about corporate greed
and incompetence. Nationalism seemed irrelevant to the issue.

Besides which you seemed unaware that Krups is not Krupp which
has been making fine German artillery for a long, long time.

I mentioned Vettel because he is German (like Krups and Krupp)
but that isn't why I don't like him. I also like BMW because of the
fine engines they built for the Luftwaffe, not in spite of them.

Products versus politics, prejudice and short sighted history...
And you say I am the one confused.

~jwf~

Afternoon folks, this has been a really informative thread so far. I admit to knowing the Monsanto aren't a good company, but I'm learning a lot of new stuff, like Round-Up being Agent Orange. Is that really true?

The problem with anything that gets emotions going, is that we always automatically assume the worst and fight our corners. I'd love to see this thread continue for quite a while yet, there really is some good stuff coming to light here, so before it starts down the "he said, she said" route can we all initially assume we're being nice when posting and double check before responding?

Seriously? Agent Orange?

Yeah. No interest in butting heads with someone who's twisting my words to try and demonstrate some anti-German bias.

No, Agent Orange is nothing like glyphosate. Glyphosate you can buy from you local garden centre and is considered a reasonably mild weedkiller.

Glyphosate

http://compare.ebay.co.uk/like/261086048504?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&adtype=pla&crdt=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Agent orange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Oddly enough, you can't buy agent orange, nor either of its component compounds (at least without a license - I might be able to - I could make it certainly)