Slashdot Mirror

Corn seeds regrown from the current crop:

https://modernfarmer.com/2015/...

There was also a PBS documentary, but I can't find a link now. It was about farmers being sued by Monsanto because GMO pollen had got into their fields. They were essentially forced to switch to GMO corn and buy the seed new every year. With grains and beans the crop *is* the seed. Wouldn't it be kind of silly for professional farmers to buy new every year when they're the ones who grow the seed in the first place?

Sterile seeds: Why didn't you look this up yourself?
In general their seeds are designed to be sterile. To some extent they can sprout, but Monsanto won a court case against a farmer who tried to do just that:

https://www.theguardian.com/en...

The farmer bought up leftover seed from a grain silo to do a second planting in one season.

"Kagan... agreed with the company's argument that if it allowed farmers like Bowman to replant his seeds after just one season's use, it would have no business model"

The problem I have with your argument is that all of your sources are from monsanto.

A 2 second web search provided tens of articles, here is six:

monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
monsanto-sued-farmers-16-years-gmos-never-lost
monsanto-patents-sue-farmers
the-enemy-of-family-farmers
monsanto-wins-lawsuit
seeding-fear-the-story-of-a-farmer-who-took-on-monsanto
All of which tell a different story.

First, fvck you SJW. I'm not equating morality with food choices.

Then what exactly are you equating food choices with?

But the food you put in your mouth *is* a choice. It might be cheaper and/or easier to put trash processed food in your mouth. But it is *your* choice to eat cheap trash instead of eating smart.

Ah, so you're in the same camp as the GP:

Moreover, there's tons of evidence these chemicals are bad for you.

The GP does bring up the point about cigarette companies trying to hide the truth about smoking, but the question about processed foods is a lot less clear. There's no single chemical (or process) to point out but a whole host of them, grouped into having different intended purposes. The whole idea that doctors don't say they're A-Ok should be true nearly across the board: 6 Secretly Poisonous Plants We Eat All the Time There's very little you can eat in nearly unlimited quantities or continuously over an unlimited time without negative health effects.

So, really what are you claiming? Processed food == fat people == cancer? Because even that parallel is false. I'd really like to know exactly what "smart" way people are supposed to eat, unless there's some intelligence in eating fresh for fresh sake, even if you can't prove any health benefit.

1. Store of Value.

One hundred years ago, an ounce of gold could purchase a finely tailored suit. Today, the same ounce of gold will still purchase a finely tailored suit.

If fiat currency were a store of value, then the same amount would perform likewise. But it is not. Since it takes more and more fiat currency to purchase the same value of goods, fiat currency leaks value like a recently unplugged capacitor. I have a 5,000,000 dutchmark and a 100,000,000,000,000 Zimbabwe dollar in my collection that are both essentially worthless because of this reason.

Instead, we fool ourselves into thinking that goods rise in value by calling it inflation. Watch a game show from the 1970s and you will see brand new cars selling for $3,000 to $4,000 USD. At the same time, the smart money has been invested in land, resources, and other durable goods.

The reality is that our currency is not based upon anything of value. It is simply numbers printed on worthless pieces of paper. For the creators of any particular currency, Evan in this case, it is a situation where they can deal themselves in without doing any real work. All currencies eventually fail for this reason. That is why the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids fiat currency in Article I, Section 10.

"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".

Enough whining about smartphones. What about fixing other devices?
http://modernfarmer.com/2016/0...

I mean who's car do they think it is?

If Chevy took the route that John Deere took when they were challenged regarding the ability of individuals to repair their own equipment, the car actually belongs to them. "John Deere said that those who buy tractors are actually purchasing an "implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.""

looks that way.

Here are the links as text: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/...
http://modernfarmer.com/2016/0...
http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

Not working so well for John Deer owners... http://modernfarmer.com/2016/0...

While I agree with your basic point keep in mind it's more like:

a [untitled, unreferenced] 2011 study [probably funded by the industry] calculated [based on a bunch of wildly optimistic, untestable assumptions made in almost total ignorance and inexperience] that growing meat in labs would cut down on the land required to produce steaks, sausages and bacon by 99 per cent and reduce the associated need for water by 90 per cent. What's more, it found that a pound of lab-created meat would produce much less polluting greenhouse-gas emissions than is produced by cows and pigs, even poultry.

A more recent article 2014
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/0...

"One tissue-engineering researcher I spoke with scoffed at claims that cell culture techniques could deliver an edible hamburger for a reasonable cost, with a lower environmental footprint, than a cow.

âoeIf you ask anyone who has actually worked in a lab,â he says, âoewho has seen how cells are grown in a lab and how artificial tissue is made, the amount of energy and resources that go into it â" theyâ(TM)ll tell you, itâ(TM)s never going to happen.â

Post, the scientist whose cultured cells went into the celebrity burger, disagreed, but he acknowledged that there are still unanswered questions about the production process. The largest one is this: What will we feed animal tissue cells, cultured in a lab? ...

Of the researchers I spoke with, Post was the most optimistic, and even he admitted that it hasnâ(TM)t been done yet, and that âoewe canâ(TM)t be 100 percent sure that cells, in culture, can be more efficient than a cow. That is something that needs to be proven.â

For now, Post and others in the industry feed their burgers fetal bovine serum, which currently is produced from blood collected in slaughterhouses and processed in a lab. Footprint analysis hasnâ(TM)t been done on that method, but even the scientists involved say they donâ(TM)t think the numbers would look good â" and itâ(TM)s not a sustainable, animal-free solution in the long run."

Yeah, because an industry with one of the highest equipment-related death/injury rates for its workers and habitually and flagrantly skirting protections designed to protect the public from harm is one that should be allowed to regulate itself. GREAT IDEA!

Rabbits have been a fine food source in places like France for a very long time

An *occasional* supplemental protein source for families who already get enough calories, I agree. But not a significant cure for *starvation*! If you are staving are you going to grow your own alfalfa, etc, then spend time breeding, raising, etc rabbits for meat? Or just hope whatever vegetable matter you grew was enough to keep your kids from dying before your rabbits?

And not that hard to research, and kind of interesting (again, because I would like to see more rabbit in the US, but it's WAY more expensive and risky (in terms of yield, weight, mortality, etc) than *chicken* to mass produce.

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/0...

here I thought they were referencing this "real-life" event.

Seriously, the script writers on this reality are the lowest form of hack. Demand better.

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/0...

Unfortunately, they're only focusing on lettuce for right now.

Personally, I just use a hydroponics system, so I don't have to worry about significant weed problems. (algae and insect problems, yes, but not weeds).