Slashdot Mirror
Terminator Gene Ban Suggested in Canada
innocent_white_lamb writes "A member of the Canadian Parliament has proposed legislation to outlaw the development and deployment of 'terminator genes' that would prevent seeds from germinating after a set span of time. This practice would require farmers to re-purchase seed every year instead of saving the seeds from last year's crop. The legislation is not expected to pass due to opposition from the Agriculture Minister. 'There is also an issue with the technology, which is based on a complicated five-gene construct. It is "inevitable" it will fail and could harm biodiversity, said Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, which backs the ban. CFIA argues exactly the opposite, saying "the terminator approach provides an excellent method to protect against transference of novel traits to other crops and plant species."'"
is going to harm biodiversity? IT CAN'T PROPAGATE.
This for 1. sounds almost like a bad vendor lock-in and 2. Any time you alter something, you have the possibility of a long term result you couldn't plan for.
Hmmm. Genetically modifying plant DNA so that they stop producing seeds after a generation. Why does that sound like a really really bad idea.
who knows what modified genes may spread into other plants and animals? this is scary to think we might eat these crops and become sterile.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
waiting for the Arnold Schwarzenegger jokes to start ;0
s/©//g
Isn't making the plants that grow from the seeds produce seeds that are sterile good enough?
If I buy a seed I should be able to plant it as far away from when I bought it as I'd like.
If you explain to the farmer that the plant cannot be used for seed it is up to the farmer and the open market to decide if that is the right approach. If the farmer cannot afford the seed then they will have to use non engineered seed and the companies will have to decide if it is worth it.
The industry of growing crops has been around for thousands of years... of course farmers shouldn't have to re-buy seeds. Using last year's seeds/etc is how the small farmer can even bear to get a living against a corporate farm.
stuff |
Wait a minute. Arnie comes to Canada, signs as few deals, and then we ban him from procreating here? Oh wait... should RTFA...
.. DRM for seeds.
-- lol pwned
If they had chosen a different name, perhaps "Kindergarten Cop Gene," this wouldn't be an issue....
It seems like with the insanity the US government promotes with corporations gone wild and the destruction of human rights, it will be up to the rest of the world to preserve civilization. Maybe once the whole house of cards collapses the rest of the world can then help us fund our rebuilding, a reverse Marshall Plan.
And I avoided making any reference to man-eating venus flytraps looking for Sarah Connor! Yay--er, crap.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Canadian Parliament: You just can't go around killing people. The Terminator: Why? Canadian Parliament: What do you mean why? 'Cause you can't. The Terminator: Why? Canadian Parliament: Because you just can't, OK? Trust me on this.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Before I RTFA I thought this was about a real 'Terminator' gene. Guess I was fooled. On topic now I agree that this is a scary idea. I will admit ignorance in this field though as I have no idea about growing plants except for in the garden and maybe ....... the closet (what its bright in there).
Legalize Green Today!
A farmer in Canada who grew his own seeds his whole life lost a supreme court case so that when Roundup Ready seeds were blown from the highway into his field, now all his crops were owned by Monsanto. He was forced to buy expensive seed from Monsanto rather than keep it year to year. This is happening everywhere. By limiting the life of patented seed to one year, accidental transferrence can not happen. This is a good thing for that reason. And the genes that cause the one year lifespan can not be passed to future generations of the crop.
So when all the wheat seeds hit their expiration date and we all starve, will the AEAA (Agricultural Exploitation Association of America) blame it on seed piracy?
Shift happens. Fire it up.
I didn't know the Terminator's first name was Gene...
This guy's the limit!
to the politicians? Term limits enforced by biology, a damn good idea.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The Germinator: The Skyflower Funding Bill is passed. The system goes in-ground August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic farming. Skyflower begins to grow at a geometric rate. It becomes self-fertilizing at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to cut the roots.
Sarah Connor: Skyflower fights back.
: Yes. It launches its pollen against the targets in Russia.
John Connor: Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?
The Germinator: Because Skyflower knows the Russian counter-attack will eliminate its enemies over here.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
and terminator genes get passed on.
A British researcher has a cure for 50 percent of all cancers based on activating apotosis in cancer cells (99.9 percent) but not normal cells (1 percent) with a mild increase in cell heat after a trigger is sent, for example.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There is not serious danger in the idea of the terminator gene making its way into other crops. Anything that has the gene will have a hard time propagating. But I would like to see it outlawed simply because it has the potential to cause problems in the case of a disaster, and because of various IP laws that permit Monsatan to prevent people from being able to harvest the seed from their own crops because some patented seed or pollen flew onto their land. Such happenings are part of nature and quite unavoidable...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
because Canada is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Gulags of America.
Prezidentially yourz,
George W. Bush
made me think of the arnold schwarzenegger movie
the article text made me think of 'blade runner' (what with all of the predetermined early mortality)
so i guess i learned all i need to know about genetic engineering in 80s sci fi movies
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... I'll be back.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
It had to be said.
It would be utterly foolish to implement a blanket ban on sterile crops. There are some excellent environmental reasons why sterile crops are good. The most obvious reasons is that if you are the one guy growing some GM modified group surround by a pile of normal crops, having sterile crops is a good way to prevent everyone around you from getting your GM modified seeds. One of the big fears with GM modified crops is that they will spread throughout the ecosystem and into the normal crop supply. If there is later found out to be a flaw with the GM modified crops, then the entire harvest in the whole region might have to be checked for cross-contamination.
Does this make farmers dependent upon seed companies? Sure. Slap some labels on that shit making it clear that if you buy this type of farm seed you will not be able to replant and let farmers decide. I know that right now many farmers pick seeds that can't be replanted anyways because the seeds are cheap and have yields high enough to make the added cost of re-buying seeds worth it.
So they want to force farmers into constantly buying new seeds every growing season? Doesn't quite sound like the smartest move, considering the agricultre sector in Canada isn't doing so hot, as far as I can tell from the protests when they drive their bloody tractors down the highway at 7AM.
So, sure, the almighty dollar swims in it's pool of gold coins for now, but what happens when farmers realize they can no longer afford to re-invest in an entire season's worth of crops anymore?
This has all of the makings of a Sci-Fi plot.
Greedy corporations tinker with the food supply to maximize profit.
Unintended consequences devastate the population.
The few remaining humans vow to learn from these mistakes.
(Sequel: Until they forget and repeat the cycle).
Where have I seen this before?
Prior to the mid 90's I never knew anybody with corn or gluten allergies. I now have several family members and friends on special diets to avoid corn or gluten.
I have a niece who developed a corn allergy following the 'accidental' introduction of Starlink (GM) corn into consumer foods, most notably shells used briefly at Taco Bell in 2000.
I have a difficult time believing that feeding GM corn to an animal is OK, but feed the same corn to a human and that's dangerous. HOWEVER it's OK for that same peorson to eat that very animal without fear of developing a food allergy. Excuse the sound of my bullshit meter going off.
Will the future of gene splicers be rogue hackers writing real viral genetic code to do such things as:
A. using the apotosis chain terminator to kill off a competitors crop by setting the terminator trigger off early;
B. hacking a hybrid plant version to turn off the terminator and claim it under hybrid rules as "normal biological activity";
C. making your breakfast cereal pop when you use the wrong milk
All these things are possible.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If a farmer had the choice between seeds he can use to generate new seeds, vs seeds that only work once, wouldn't he go with the most flexible ones? This just reeks of vendor lock-in...will we begin to see "open source" agriculture "sprout" up?
:-P
On the other hand, could this be developed for humans, possibly in the Ohio/Indiana/West Virginia/California areas?
It might cross breed with normal seed and terminate it. What you would be left with is nothing but what the friendly multinational has to offer each year. That might not be good for you.
The whole "rape seed" Monsanto insanity is a good primer on these matters. An normal farmer in Canada was forced to destroy his crops because they were contaminated by neighbors using Monsanto seed. The US has pushed these practices onto the Iraqi puppet government, so you can see where they would really like things to go.
There are fundamental problems with seed patents that need to be corrected. The contamination issue is one that makes the whole idea look foolish and economically harmful.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
..."inevitable" it will fail and could harm biodiversity...
..excellent method to protect against transference of novel traits...
and
Sounds close to the same arguement.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Just Google "California Assembly Bill 1634" and you will see that California is close to mandating the sterilization of a renewable food source.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Monsanto is the world's largest seed company (after its January 2005 acquisition of Seminis for US$1.4 billion).
The company's 2004 pro forma seed revenues (including Seminis) were US$2.8 billion.
Monsanto's GM crops and traits accounted for almost 90% of the total GM crop area worldwide in 2004
Monsanto controls 41% of the global maize market and over one-fourth of the commercial soybean market (both conventional and GM seed).
Monsanto and Terminator
This is old news... Like 2000 old news...
Infiltrated dot Net
Using last year's seeds/etc is how the small farmer can even bear to get a living against a corporate farm.
So a farmer who saves seeds wouldn't be affected by this at all, right? He'll just use the seeds he has. Or get some from a friend, or buy some from the inevitable seed companies who will pledge to carry non-terminator crops. If there's too much of a monoculture in seed producers this will provide a good differentiator in the market.
The only problem I can see is if there were a chance of the terminator gene being introduced to the farmers' crops unwillingly - has this been studied?
Personally I feel better that GMO's have an 'off' switch.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Actually, he won, partially, and is firing back with another case due in 2008.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Doesn't this come down to a total cost of ownership decision that any business should make:
Option A: I buy the traditional option, I lose X% to various natural hardships, I replant the seed I keep back next year.
Option B: I buy the new version, I lose a smaller Y% to various natural hardships, I have to buy the seed again next year.
If my profit increases due to decreased loss by more than the cost of annual purchases, I buy the annual purchase option. If my profit increases less than the cost of annual purchases, I keep doing it the old way.
Cheesy as it feels to see science advance to the point where this happens with crops like it already does with other man made commodities, are the "poor farmers" really being forced in to anything worse [in terms of that business model]? They can still buy traditional seeds, right?
Now there's the bigger issue with whether we want something in our food chain that turns off the ability to reproduce (even if there's no science for it being passed on, that alone should make awesome advertising for those who don't go with it). There's also the bigger issue with this gene getting passed on to other farmers and their crops getting wiped out - unfortunately, thus far, legislation seems to be siding with the seed producers and not those who fall victim to cross polinization thanks to lobbying funds etc.
Still, in terms of the "poor farmers" - unless there's some kind of monopoly I'm missing, why can't they just not buy the product if they don't like the terms?
That makes me wonder where humans went wrong.
Seriously, passing a law that requires farmers to re-purchase natural seeds every year??? When did people get so obsessed with money that they stopped caring about the people that they live with on this planet?
This kind of shit is what sends me into a spiral of depression.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
There are some things that should never be left up to the free market and this is one of them. It should not be acceptable to use genetic manipulation to hinder farming practices. It's fine to use it to promote farming practices (such as to increase yield, drought resistance, etc), but it should be absolutely illegal to sell genetic material designed to prevent people from farming. Yes I realize this lowers the incentive to "innovate", but as we have seen in the health care industry, higher profit though selling new products from research and development does not automatically mean better outcomes. In fact, far more people die each year thanks to lack of access to health care than are saved by the billions of dollars put into research and development.It would be a horrible shame if the same kind of philosophy made its way into agriculture, a field of endeavor fundamental to our very existence as a species.
Amazing how greed driven society can be so short sighted. Go ahead and destroy the world. No one it seems deserves to live anyway.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
From my understanding, most farmers need to buy new seed occasionaly because it evetually becomes contaminated, so I'm not sure that the economic benefit is really so great. This is likely on of the reasons that it's not marketed currently.
It also won't discourage determined people who want to get free GM seeds, since it seems likely that enough iterations of cross polination will get the set of traits you want, without the traits you don't. (I'm interested in hearing about why this wouldn't work, if anyone has any information on that).
It's kind of analogous to DRM, really.
People starve when you do. The free market is concerned with short term profit (the 10 to 30 years it takes to get filthy, stinkin' rich), not with the long term viability of our food supply. This doesn't mean socialism, but it sure has hell means regulation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Link to bill. However, since it hasn't been put on the order paper and it's a minority parliament, this bill will likely die on the order paper (meaning Parliament will be dissolved before the bill passes).
Hey, I know I'm off topic but it's the next step.
Big corps have now the control of the following:
-Transportation (gas prices!)
-Water (rain included in some countries!)
-Food
-Seeds (These one-shot seeds that "absolutely will not cross-pollinate with other plants"(tm)) (Dumb F&^Ken $h1ts)
All thanks to the control of: Government
They don't control the following, yet:
-air we breath (pollution is step one, clean air for sale is step 2)
-Procreation:
Once they make most people unable to have kids they will force you to rent a artificial womb and sell you sperm that will one give you a kid, not grand-kids. They'll charge you double if you get twin, too.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
For starters, how about the Law of Unintended Consequences?
Mankind has historically been unable to foresee the results of changes to relatively simple systems, often with deadly and far-reaching consequences.
Now, naturally occurring biologic systems are just mind-bogglingly complicated, and we have only the slightest inkling of how they function. Genetic material is, by its very nature, extremely prone to mutation and propagation. We have no idea what the introduction of molecular time bombs in the wild could lead to. Moreover, to do so simply to protect some corporation's profit margin is more than simply risky, it's depravedly irresponsible.
It should not be banned only, it should be declared as crime against humanity.
Imagine a sudden, global catastrophe that would shut down global transportation, resources or access to harvest and distribute the "designer" seed...
Corporations want to send people for downloading music or copying a movie, but they are free to put in danger the food supply, that can potentially affect the survival of millions, so that the shareholders of one or a few companies can make more money?
I challenge any politician to explain the voters how is it more harmful to society to copy illegally a cultural product than putting in danger the food supply.
The bottom line here is that the only reason for the existance of the terminator gene in the first place is to squeeze more money out of farmers and control crops with their "intellectual property rights" bullshit. The only reason that the Agriculture Minister would be supporting this is because he is a Monsanto shill. This is really one case where what is good for the people and what is good for the corporations can be drawn in black and white. There is absolutely no other reason for the terminator gene to exist.
They've already declared music, writing, artwork, and source code to be "intellectual property." Next up will be genes and molecules, followed by plants and animals, air, water, you name it. Everything will have a monetary value and a corresponding license. Don't you just love commoditization?
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Sequence me if you want to live.
...for farmers too poor to buy new seeds. And who can really know if these genes have negative effects if bacteria in the soil pick them up.
Coming from a small, rural town in Ohio, I'm somewhat familiar with farming practices. I know that farmers are already forced (and have been for years) to buy the seeds for corn from the producer every year. I *believe* it has to do with the people selling the seeds only licensing the seeds for one season, combined with the difficulty in getting a good crop the next year out of the seeds you planted. I'm not sure if the low quality of second-generation seeds is an issue of cross-pollination or of the seeds themselves which have been maximized for yield in a single season.
I've heard of farmers attempting to use seeds that they've collected from their crops and being sued for it. It really does sound like the RIAA. After finding that it's difficult to control the spread of the breeds they have copyright on, they tried technological solutions to thwart piracy. I wonder how long it will be until the farmers come up with a method for reversing this T gene.
But if they manned the Monsanto corporation, the reputation of GM food would improve immeasurably.
when you don't even need to buy the stuff to end up with the t-gene. Go to any of the Percy Schmeisser links already posted, or just research cross pollination.
We're sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Had to say it - sorry.
What if there is no going back once you switch to GM seeds with terminator gene. Then the greedy corp may charge more for GM seed, as much as they want basically.
How long before wheat and corn disappear altogether and all we are left with is the GM version?
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
It's possible to imagine a circumstance where the originating company can neither continue producing the seeds nor indemnify the public for damage done by unintended consequences. It's much worse than DRM, in fact, it's probably immoral. The security of agriculture is more important in the long run than relatively short term profits for chemical companies.
Hm, that link was for sterilizing your pets. lol
My poor dog! I didn't realize he was a "renewable food source" in America.
The Germinator: I'll sprout back.
Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
but it seems to me to be crazy to insert a gene sequence into a plant to prevent germination. So, this sequence "escapes". How do we then pull back and prevent catastrophe in any other related species? I acknowledge that I'm no expert, but I wouldnt be surprised if all the commercial grasses - corn , wheat, rye etc - are very closely related genetically.
encourage a lot more herbicide use, which kills off other species of plants by `accident'
This also breeds more resistant weeds, so eventually everyone is forced to use pesticide resistant seed ... owned by a single company!
There is also disturbing evidence of the resistance genes being passed directly into weeds from the crop. The mechanism is not understood.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I would Monsanto all of the scientists, shareholders, politicians who support the idea of seeds that would die out at the first generation.
It would greatly benefit society if they lived by their own principles and stopped replicating themselves.
I would like to know where the genetically modified seeds are coming from exactly. The real advantage to using seeds which the crop has yielded is that plants that aren't fit to survive in their environment will die off and the more resistant will continue to reproduce and make new seeds and successive generations of crops. If you stop using the seeds which are found in the crops natural environment, you run the risk of crops being wiped out by changes in environmental conditions that the laboratory produced seeds can't handle. Additionally, if the genetically modified seeds are too similar in genetic make up, a virus, parasite or insect could completely destroy a crop that lacks the right amount of genetic diversity.
all this for monetary profit.
That's why I'm disgusted with the efforts by biotech and government to enforce "intellectual property" rights on GMOs. However, I actually say don't ban the terminator genes. Let them produce all they want, and let farmers who think it's worth it buy all they want. Just be sure the laws and the courts make it possible for the neighboring farmer to sue the producer into the dirt when the self-destructive organism takes their crop down with it. I'd rather see them brutally punished for pursuing such an unfriendly idea than just go back to the lab and come up with a workaround when governments legislate narrowly against their current research.
And if they do manage to come up with a way to do this that has no chance of unintended propagation, well then what's the harm? Each farmer will make their own decision on whether it's economical for them or not. If there are farmers who would lose money on terminating seeds, then you can bet there will still be plenty of firms willing to take their money for non-terminating seeds.
The summary mentions CFIA but not what CFIA is. Johnson says take two steps back.
that's exactly what it is, and even worse-- we eat the stuff, and there is a trail of evidence that these companies (namely monsanto) knew, ahead of time, that the GMOs were/are harmful to life and cause a wide array of reproductive problems.
/proven/ that the genetic modification transfers through the soil. that's right. see, people would spray something like monsanto's roundup ready around their genetically modified plants, and the roundup would kill any weeds around the plant, but it wouldn't harm the plant because the plant itself had the same pesticide embedded in it (glyophosphate iirc). well, before long farmers became discouraged because roundup no longer killed the weeds that grew around their GE plants. the pesticide gene had transferred to the weeds. no joke. (and people have been researching this same effect with the terminator gene, and many people do have very convincing evidence that this same thing happens with it)...
do you know how they make seedless grapes, through cloning? i had often wondered how we got seedless grapes. its really interesting stuff, you should check it out. the problem is, alot of people think that the seeds from companies like monsanto are using well established methods that have stood the test of time (e.g. cloning), but in this they are dangerously mistaken. monsanto is, in fact, using science that is actually far closer to voodoo (i recall reading several reports that hinted and even blatantly stated that its a real trial and error 'science', that is to say, for every 1 seed that seems to have been produced 'correctly', there are hundreds of seeds that are immediately discarded because they don't 'look' right.)
how did this come about? i think a big factor in this is that people always complained about having to wash their vegetables off because there was a good chance that there would be pesticide residue on them. so then companies like monsanto and dupont saw this and found a way to capitalize on it. if they made their own plants/seeds that had the pesticide gene spliced into them, they could patent it and own it and at the same time market the fact that their plants won't be sprayed with pesticides. now there isn't any way to wash the poison off the plants-- it's genetically embedded. how sci-fi crazy is that?
here is where it gets even more sci-fi. it is
so on one side we have conspiracy theorists screaming bloody murder saying monsanto kidnapped jfk and built the pyramids using colloidal silver, and on the other side we have people that are fully convinced (although they have done far less research than the forementioned conspiracy theorists) that there is no wrong being done by monsanto and that GE foods are completely safe (even though they are banned in most of the rest of the world). to them all i can say is this: you need only look at the methods used by a company to bring their product to the market to tell if it passes the smell test or not. let's look at monsanto's rBGH. you know how they got posilac approved? they had to submit a report on its safety to the FDA. so, they had a researcher named Margaret Miller. she writes the report up, and then leaves monsanto before it is submitted to the FDA. Then, lo and behold, she is immediately hired by the FDA. guess what her first job was? to approve or deny the validity of the report she herself had just wrote. you can't make this stuff up. the jury's out, we're eating and drinking the evidence away. congratulations, capitalism.
There is an interesting documentary that details much of what this post talks of. I would encourage everyone to check it out if they have the chance to.
The Future of FoodYou haven't lived until you've had mail-carrier fattened pit-bull, with a side of spicy chihuahua links.
...you bury seeds. This is another example of the IMO idiocy of the Milton Friedman Chicago Boys school of economic theory. Even an incompetent government is fundamentally dedicated to serving the people. A corporation is dedicated to generating profit. When you give corporations control (directly or indirectly) of government responsibilities, they'll inevitably sacrifice public service for profit.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I pity da fool that mess with T genes!
If they have the terminator gene's then people will say what happens when those plants cross pollinate with my plants and my crops stop producing seeds or why do they keep getting to collect money over and over from seeds greedy bastards.
If they don't have the terminator gene's then people will be saying what happens when this evil gene/plant you created spreads into the ecosystem and wipes out biodiversity etc, etc.
So ya damned if you do and damned if you don't.
They should offer the farmers a do_not_sue covenant. The farmers can produce seeds as long as the farmers agree that their seeds violate CFIA intelluctual property, agree to not materially benefit from growing crops from their own seeds, agree to fold back future improvements into CFIA and agree to not work on the seeds in their employers time. The covenant only extends to the farmers and is not passed on ..
davecb5620@gmail.com
This is nothing new.. and yes it's bad.. I've been mad about it for years.
It's hard to believe people are 'worried' this 'might' come to the US or other countries.
it's been going on for ages.
you buy seeds at a large store.. like walmart, lowes, southern states.. etc etc..
that seed is hybrid.. and sterile.. it will make a plant.. but that plant will not be able to reproduce from the seed that it's fruit bears. and yes it's bad for you.
it's all about recurring revenue of course.. nothing else.
some stand up and say.. 'but the seeds are made to resist rot, or mildew, or insects etc etc..
no they are not.. the chemical coating that is on them does that.. (the red and blue and green stuff)
the seed is simply made to be a hearty plant that can't reproduce.. they put it on steroids per se'
and we've been allowing this to go on for decades.. people have squeeked a little about it. but not enough..
this is about the only kind of seed that is available on the market.. it's very very difficult to find heirloom seeds..
this needs to be stopped.. has needed to be stopped for many years..
but people just don't seem to care.. they go to the store and buy their food.. in boxes, cans and bags.. as long as it tastes good they don't complain..
there are too few farmers to make a difference.. and the general store-shelf consumer is oblivious to what is going on in the seed world.. and many don't care.. or just don't know..
and when they do find out.. just say 'thats awefull' and turn the page.. to move on to hear about the next article of consideration.. without ever doing anything about it.
what is going to happen if a war breaks out and the hybrid seed plants get squashed in some way or other.. by either infection or destruction. mass starvation..
because the only source for the seeds is gone..
think about that or wind up your own scenarios..
but this has to stop.. and it takes MANY VOICES to make it so.
do it.
Let's say I spend a billion dollars and come up with a new wonder plant. Resistant to pests, frost, whatever. Packs in 10 times the nutritional density. Is 10 times better for use in producing ethanol than sugar. Whatever.
I've spent a billion bucks to make a new super plant that everyone wants.
How do I get my money back if one guy buys a batch of seeds and the next thing you know everyone has the seeds?
I don't like the situation either (genetically built-in DRM) but who's going to bother developing these nice genetically superior products if you can't sell them?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Even if the plan dies it'll be back<\Austrian Accent>
Sorry, I'll get my hat and leave...
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
While I agree that the government should watch out for such abuses, this does not, by extension absolve corporations like Monsanto from responsibility for such an apparantly reckless action.
For example, if I make a decision to drive home drunk one night, that's a bad decision regardless of whether or not someone is there to enforce the law (i.e. I get caught), or even if there was an accident as a result.
no...it is not the corporate world's job to put greed above corporate responsibility
A goal is a dream with a deadline
If there are no limitations about replanting, then what will company X that has spent Y millions of dollars to produce a superior crop do to recoup their expenses? After just *one* person buys seeds, well, that person is in a position to supply the whole rest of the world with those same seeds (directly and indirectly) at normal seed prices, so company X, despite their extra expenses, will not be able to make any more money than they would have simply have sold ordinary seeds int the first place.
So, guess what? The only way they can ensure profit is to maintain total agricultural monopoly on the product itself. And which do you think is more likely to squeeze out the small farmers, continued dependence on seed suppliers, or corporations with vastly superior crops who will not share these crops with anyone else?
I'd say the first is the better choice, although we are making many generalization about what would actually end up being very specific scenarios.
Consider that as long as the farmer's increased crop yields, decreased use of pesticides, fertilizer, etc. all result in more profit than is consumed by the extra expenditure for seeds, then all the farmers, no matter how small they are, are better off for buying the self-terminating seeds than they would be otherwise. Clearly, that is a different situation if they are being gouged, but you can't just blindly say that this is a bad idea.
Whether it benefits the little guy is 100% contingent on the pricing scheme the company offers, and we do need to have some sort of market reward for this kind of work. I personally would much rather have seeds that self-terminate than government laws which simply forbid you to grow such plants without a license.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
The choice would not be that simple. Monsanto doesn't just sell seeds that do not reproduce, their seeds also have other benefits like resistance to herbicides and increased yields. The problem is you cannot get access to one without the other, so a farmer would be free to choose some other brand that doesn't terminate, but then will lose money competing against farmers using the monsanto product and go out of business. This just sounds like the market working efficiently, except that Monsanto is a huge corporation and their patents on this stuff mean it would not take them long to establish a monopoly. If you think agriculture can be successful in the long term when there is a SINGLE source of seeds and it is illegal to use those seeds without "permission" you are sadly mistaken. At the end of the day, unrestrained capitalism is equivalent to a top-down managed economy (such as the USSR or China) because it has the same outcome: a small group of people controlling all the capital, and invariably making mistakes managing that capital.
The ultimate goal is to dominate and rule the whole world of seeds. While this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is the only explanation that makes sense without thinking the Monsanto management has their head stuck up their arse.
The new Canadian law is exactly this - a lobby effort targeting at domination, against our environment.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed
As much as people think that farmers not being able to save seeds is a new issue, it's not. It's happened before. Kinda sounds like Battlestar, doesn't it?
In any case, people found that selfing two plant lines (getting seeds from a plant by pollinating the plant with it's own pollen) to make them homozygous at all alleles, and then crossing the 2 lines to create progeny heterozygous at every locus produced more robust plants; READ, bigger, more product, feeds more people.
Now, the problem with this, is that the farmers can't save their own seeds! Keeping seeds, planting a new crop, and letting the new plants fertilize each other INCREASES homozygosity, decreasing hybrid vigor. As a result, saving seeds is NOT A VIABLE OPTION.
How long has this been around? Get this: this process was invented in 1914-1917, and nearly all corn today is hybrid corn. I don't know how much of America's crops are GMO's and if that has any effect on number of hybrid crops, but the Wiki sounds right. It sounds right, based on what I've been taught.
So, this talk about farmers saving seeds is kind of moot; it's not a good idea with hybrid crops, and their profits from buying hybrid crop seeds every year must outweigh saving seeds, otherwise they wouldn't do it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_gene
This isn't to absolve big companies for Terminator crops; I think there's a better way of preventing outbreeding, specifically by altering protein ID proteins so they're only recognized by a specific plant. But I think this will not affect greatest population of farmers, specifically because of hybrid crop use. The only population that gets screwed over appears to be farmers who do save seeds, and I don't think that population is very large, because it doesn't seem as profitable. As a result, perhaps legislation stating that Terminator crops can only be used when there is no presence of seed saving farmers could be put into place.
The pseudo-free market we have is even worse. Regulate with Special Interest is what it should be called at the moment.
The creation and endorsement of terminator seeds is a crime against humanity. I cannot believe money and time were spent to develop this. These should be made illegal everywhere on this planet. We already have enough problems with dictators starving their populations for their political ends. Let's not give them anymore tools to do so.
It's not worse by a long shot. Hell, just a week or so ago there was a major problem with toothpaste having antifreeze in it (well, a component of antifreeze), and the FDA was advising people to toss out any antifreeze from China. I'll bloody well take what I can get for regulation, even if it's not perfect.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Human beings have been "innovating" by breeding and grafting crops to produce better crops for millenia. Domesticated plants are completely different from their wild cousins, in the case of crops like corn so different that it took us a long time to determine for sure what their ancestors were. We've spent thousands and thousands of years developing better crops, and why?
For the purpose of having superior crops! That's all the incentive humanity has ever needed!
So some multination might not find it worth it to spend a billion dollars developing a new super crop. Who cares? Why should I allow them to completely reverse the foundation of all of those millenia of argiculture just because they fell that foundation hurts their profit margin? Who the hell cares?! We never needed Monsanto before, we don't need them now, and we shouldn't bow to them just because they are greedy and want to destroy independent farming. That ten thousand years history of innovation that led to modern crops is both Monsanto's base because they use those same plants to modify, and their enemy because the idea of independent innovation cuts into their profit margin.
And we're letting them do it. They are hurting farming, not helping, their crops are "better" in the shortest term thinking possible (1 harvest) but terrible over time as they cross-pollinate free crops and destroy them, reducing biodiversity and reducing the incentive of anyone not Monsanto to innovate -- like the Canadian farmer who had 40 years of selective breeding undone by a terminator-strain field nearby. What about his incentive, huh? That's the real cost of what you're suggesting. Do you think it's worth it?
Besides, other companies have made a good profit selling seeds that didn't come with fucking genetic DRM. Monsanto is the only one who thinks they need to have plants that self destruct (after contaminating non-Monsanto plants which then also self destruct). These are people so greedy they're not happy only with profit, but only with ludicrous profit, forever. At the cost of independent farming. No way should we incentivize them in the way they wish.
The enemies of Democracy are
It's a law the NDP are trying to pass to BAN the gene from coming into place.
That's their job.
It's the government's job to watch out for the public and slap down such reckless and exploitative practices.
Don't blame Monsanto, blame the legislators and bureaucrats who have so shamelessly violated the public trust.
I blame them all.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
What if such a crop catches on thanks to other, positive features?
Essentially a terminator gene means that you're putting all your eggs in one basket. There will be a fairly small number of farms creating the 'master' seeds to be sold for seeding to all other farmers. If the master seed farm crop fails, effectively *everyone* will suffer a bad crop simply because there won't be any seeds available. None of the 'normal' farmers will have any usable seed stock.
And far worse, thanks to cross-pollination it's pretty likely that fields of nearby non-modified crops will inadvertedly pick up pollen containing terminator genes too, greatly reducing the viability of their seeds as well.
Before Biotech and GMO: The industry has always encouraged farmers to buy new commercial seed every year and not store seed from the previous year's harvest to plant in the current year. The reason for this is to preserve the hybridization of that specific variety of seed. Seed is grown by certified plant breeders that over time through breeding trials select for specific traits such as winter hardiness, disease resitance, baking quality in the case of wheat and protein content to name a few. It is a long and expensive method. They get paid a royalty on the sale of commercial seed. If farmers continue to plant seeds that are harvested from their own farm (what is called "bin run seed") then they will, over time, begin to loose the strength of the original hybrid commercial seed that they bought as it will inbreed and become a weaker strain. Therefore the quality for the traits that the original hybrid was bred for will be lost. Therefore lower grade, lower price and pissed off customers ie the bakers and pasta makers if wheat is used as an example. After Biotech, BMO. -- Obviously this is driven by the big seed companies but the technology is good and will in the long term benefit the food industry. It is a faster means to develop a plant breeding method through gene manipulation than through the slower natural selection process. For instance, the industry can introduce a gene into cotton that will prohibit certain insects from damaging that crop and thus eliminate the need to use pesticides. The end product is not affected by the gene and in other plants such as corn neither is human health. The companies that develop this technology have user aggreements which is at a cost to the farmer. The agreement usually prohibits the grower from using the harvested crop as seed the following year. The reason is to protect the integredity of the technology and the oringinal hybrid product. Also, if the harvested seed is planted the following year it can over time pollinate other similar non biotech crops and thus you could have contamination to another field. Basically, you lose control of the technology which the companies are wanting to protect and admitably keep their revenues growing. There is also technology where they can produce insulin for diabetics in rice through gene manipulation and I see this as needed use for the terminator gene to maintain control. The terminator gene will at the end of a certain time period after harvest not allow that seed to germinate. Thus it would prevent the farmer from planting that seed and protect the industries investment and revenues and reduce the risk of contaminating other fields IMO, it is a good idea because it will protect the quality and traits of that particular seed for which it was designed . It will also provide for more control over the seed industry thus more confidence in developing more product that will benefit the food industry and the consumer. "Bin run seed" has always been a black eye in agriculture and it needs to be curtailed whether it is traditonal seed or GMO.
where most of us are on the same side of the argument.
The company Monsanto is behind the 'terminator gene' and they really do call it that. Even a glance at googling Monsanto is turning up some disturbing things (pollution/dumping chemicals, DRM for seeds, etc.)
Lets hope Canada passes this.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
"the terminator approach provides an excellent method to protect against transference of novel traits to other crops and plant species."
Well unless the "terminator gene" itself gets transferred, in which case we could lose all ability to maintain a viable seed supply. Massive famine could result. But hey Corporate profits are a stake and I'm sure THEY are willing to take that risk.
I was talking to a friend the other day about genetically modified crops and terrorism and so on and he mentioned that there isn't a way to really do damage to an entire crop short of spraying entire swaths of the country or similar.
But this adds a new dimension. You have genetically modified crops that now nuke the other crops that it cross-pollinates with in a generation. Something like this seems to be an obvious point of attack for a possible terrorist. What happens if Monsanto's main grain supplies are attacked? Suddenly you have an entire *year* without several crops???
Actually - it would be several as there wouldn't be enough seeds to cover the demand for a while, which would mean low-yield years or a decade or so, because you can't save the seed for the next year's crop. Oops.
Bad, bad idea no matter how you look at it.
DRM for plants. Amazing.
If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
Seems to me that some ingenuity could ensure the t-gene is not in the pollen at all, just in the ova.
Putting it in the pollen can only be explained as a deliberate choice to attack neighboring conventional crops. By contaminating them with the t-gene, the conventional crop yields will drop, making the attack product more market competitive.
Positively diabolical, nyahaha!
What if the farmer's neighbour buys these seeds? They won't respect property lines.
But this adds a new dimension. You have genetically modified crops that now nuke the other crops that it cross-pollinates with in a generation. Something like this seems to be an obvious point of attack for a possible terrorist. What happens if Monsanto's main grain supplies are attacked? Suddenly you have an entire *year* without several crops???
The only way this would work in its current form is with the help of the farmers over many years, as each failed crop would have to be replaced with a newly purchased Monsanto crop in order for further non-Monsanto fields to be pollinated. This is what Monsanto wants to happen, as it maximizes their profits. If farmers reject it, though, it won't happen.
If you really wanted to turn it into a sci-fi bio-weapon, you would create a version that only produces non-viable seeds after N generations, where N is sufficient to ensure the exponential growth would cause the majority of plants to be covered. Then suddenly and without warning there are massive crop shortages, followed by more the next year as those reach the Nth generation mark, and then testing reveals that nearly all crops contain the gene and there aren't any non-terminators left to grow. This doesn't maximize Monsanto's profits, and hell I have no idea if it's possible, so it doesn't worry me as much.
Either way, we would end up dependent on Monsanto, and yes, then what happens if they are attacked, or a disease evolves that ravishes their plants specifically. Having a single source of food -- whether a single strain of grain, or a single supplier of seeds -- is a horrible, horrible idea.
The enemies of Democracy are
What it comes down to is that "Mom and Pop" farmers will suffer if a corporation like Monsanto gets their way. They *will* produce crops with superior characteristics because that is what they do and millions if not billions are poured into research. What makes this evil is that 'wild' pollination of those seeds is uncontrollable, and from the perspective of the corporation a positive (side?) effect. If the modified seeds become more widespread they will disable competitors and only seeds produced by that corporation will work.
There is a reason why greed is denounced by all major religions and ethical systems: while it's not evil per se, if uninhibited it can and will lead to evil things. E.g. it is the third of the seven deadly sins in the Christian belief. "A sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things." or to put it another way: the willingness to sell your soul for an earthly temporary gain.
So let me take this very example to illustrate this moral truism. The corporation in question is Monsanto which holds 70%-100% market share of genetically "enhanced" crops. If you check the wikipedia link you'll see that they have no problem exposing their employers (or anyone else for that matter) to hazardous conditions or bribe senior officials to evade environmental assessments or investigations into their practices/products, because the amounts paid are peanuts compared to the revenue they get.
They would rather do something illegal or morally wrong simply because it is more profitable in the long run. Free market powers and strict cost benefit analysis will not guard against such evil. Things that worked yesterday won't necessarily work tomorrow, because the rules of the game change constantly. There is no comparison between the power a corporation nowadays can wield vs. say 50 years ago and if this trend continues we're all in for a rude awakening.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Although plants who take on the gene will not produce offspring they can infect other plants through pollination. So if you're a farmer using unaltered seed and your neighbor is using the t-gene strain the chances are likely that some of his pollen will make some of your next year's crop seed worthless. You'll have a smaller crop because some of your last year plants produced seeds infected with the t-gene and those seeds won't germinate. More farmer's will be forced to buy seed and if they choose the t-gene type the problem grows. Personally I think farmers need a class action suit for damages. If their product infects my product in a negitve way why would I not be able to recover my losses?
Terminator genes exist for one purpose and one purpose alone: artificially to raise revenue for biotechnology companies by ensuring that seeds from one year's crop cannot be planted next year. (In the past this was generally done by using F1 hybrids, whose offspring will not generally resemble the parents; but, as long as you have enough offspring, you can find the closest matches to the grandparent stock, re-cross these and recreate the F1. See Mendel's pea plant experiment.)
I am no Luddite. I don't have a problem with genetic engineering per se, but when it is so blatantly misused -- for example, to breed pesticide-resistant plants and so sell more pesticides rather than breed pest-resistant plants, to create plants which cannot self-seed, or otherwise to create any kind of artificial dependency -- or when any person or company tries to claim a living organism as "intellectual property", I think that is a bad thing.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Come with me if you want to live.
How is this any different from manufacturers putting software to kill the device after warranty expiration?
Yes. It ought to be illegal.
http://www.maplight.org/
maplight = giant database..."Money and politics illuminating the connection"
--meh--
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And when either all seeds are pollinated this way, or every manufacturer uses Terminator seeds, and a catastrophic event occurs that nearly wipes out mankind; what will we use to grow food after the nuclear winter?
Once the corporations own the source code of the seeds, they can lock-in the plants.
Soon the corporations will own the source code of the animals, and thus lock-in the animals.
Once they lock-in the plants and the animals, they will basically own the food.
Once they own the food, they can take it away from anyone who disagrees with them, and no one will complain because they own the plants and animals that make the food.
Soon, they will modify the source code for humans, and then they will own YOU! We should release OUR DNA source code under the GNU Public License, before it's too late!
For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
IMDB link.
It wouldn't mean that the genes will propagate by passing their genetic material on. That would be like saying "If both your parents were sterile you probably will be too."
But if farmer's crops are destroyed because they unknowingly plant seeds that won't sprout they will be under pressure to buy seeds each year that they know will. At some point I can see where all seeds planted have the t-gene because farmers won't be able to gamble that the seeds they harvest themselves will grow so they by the seed that is available. The t-gene strain.
Once all other strains are gone they're gone.
The progeny aren't viable. After the 2nd generation, gene propagation stops. How is the gene going to go any farther than that? The only immediate problem is a neighboring farmers crop where he ends up not being able to plant viable seed, and that stops there too.
The gene can outbreed ONCE. Past that, it's a dead end, because it does what it's engineered to do, stop producing progeny!
Your last bit is describing the present situation. Most US crops are ALREADY relying on monoculture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture
You couldn't have put it better; it's a horrible, horrible idea that has already been put into effect.
We are now in the habit of planting one, ONE, high yield crop variety because it gives us the most food, and if a disease comes by that targets that crop, we're SCREWED. And this isn't just the fault of Monsanto, this is also the result of hybrid crops. The key is to start diversifying immediately.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/
The PBS special HARVEST OF FEAR is also a good resource. I believe I watched a bit of THE FUTURE OF FOOD, and found it primarily biased against biotech, as you may surmise from the description. I don't think it's good for people new to the subject to watch because of this, though it is certainly worth watching.
I felt HARVEST OF FEAR is a better introductory documentary. It provided a better balanced documentary; every interview was countered with an opposing view. When I watched it, I felt that because of the balanced viewpoints, it helped lead viewers to pros and cons, rather than inundate the viewer with negativity.
In any case, I'm offering an alternative, and I hope anyone who watches one will watch the other.
...glad you saw it or I would have chimed in. The reason for terminator gene seeds is to establish food monopolies/cartels eventually, seeds are the first step and they really want to get this going in the developing world, lock in millions or billions *forever*. They are well on the way there already, this is obvious, along with trying to patent every possible conceivable living thing (and people think software patents are a bad idea), along with the ongoing scam and ripoff of privatization of drinking water supplies for the masses. Control the food and water and that's a *lot* of economic and political power. Add in control of energy, and you got most of the bases covered and can dictate directly or sub rosa from a few steps away from the public facing political puppets how you want society to act.
Remember, this is the same company that tried to corner old traditional Indian wheat with a "patent", never mind THOUSANDS of years of "prior art", and almost got away with it-this is how they think and act, these are their "corporate values". They are the MS, Enron and Haliburton of "food". If they are "for" something, you can bet the farm it isn't good for you, and only goes to insure vendor lockin and maximum profits. I farm and won't give them turkeys a single penny for anything.
Now, I think there's a place for some extremely regulated genetic engineering and I think it can be of some good benefit long term-but not that company, not what they do and with their track record, nope, as far as I am concerned they are just *creepy* weird. I mean bad news weird. Can't put it any better than that.
So, application of the inducer causes the recombinase to leave a late promoter for the embryonic toxin. As a result, seed dies, and this is all done by allowing recombinase expression by blocking it's repressor. No application of the inducer means that recombinase is not transcribed and translated, and therefore the seed does not die. I thought the point was to add the chemical inducer so that the seeds would be viable, and those who didn't have the chemical inducer would just get normal plants, or non viable seed?
Yeah, I'm no expert in agriculture, but from what I've heard we've been using stupidly non-sustainable farming methods for quite a while now because they provided the best short-term yields. Monsanto is just trying to boost this retard-rocket into orbital velocity.
The enemies of Democracy are
HRRMMRM, So now we have people with the intelligence of "a series of tubes" having extremely complex scientific, ethical, and social arguements to determine the legal practices that develp our food. Scary.
Bluntly: the typical politician is an idiot. Partly because of their age, partly because of their profession, and partly because of the type of people who succeed in politics.
I think the world would be a lot better off with broadly-scoped laws regarding science, and have ethics committees, empowered by those lows, staffed by scientists and ethicists (without industry ties or lobbyists) who create rules with the power of law to affect the bleeding edge science and technology. How it is used, who gets to apply it, and under what circumstances. Science simply moves too fast now for the existing legislative structures to keep up with the implications and developments.
Find and support your local/country's heritage seed organization.
It's simple:
Buy seeds from them that result in plants with fruit that tastes great and they can afford to stay in business.
Today's supermarkets dictate to farmers what they can grow, or they simply don't buy from them.
For example, your typical supermarket strawberries have a good shelf life, look great, and taste like flavored chalk. If you grow your own from heritage seed they taste great but couldn't get to the market in one piece because they aren't tolerant to todays distribution methods.
Get into back-yard gardening or hydroponics (yes you can grow legal stuff with it lol) and save the world a garden at a time.
A little space can go a long way towards reducing your food bills with better product and a makes for a great hobby. You don't need lots of testers and pumps for hydroponics with auto-pots makes for the perfect geek gardening solution in my opinion.
The Aussie Heritage seed club: http://www.diggers.com.au/
Easy hydroponics: http://www.autopot.com.au/
Have a hunt around and support your local outfit.
--- I've completed diagnosis of your problem and can classify it as a YOYO...You're On Your Own
From the photo and the article someone linked to, it appears this is just another generation of Windows mobile smart phone. The photo shows the today screen which happens to have a today-applet that has big buttons that one can push with their fingers. Handy, yes, revolutionary, no. Head to head with iPhone? No.
:P
:(
I have what I'm told is also made by HTC, the UtStarCom 6700 (a.k.a. the Audiovox 6700, I think). $79 from Telus on a 3 year contract
It's a nice PDA, and a half decent phone as well. Gotta use the touch screen to dial the phone, which is slightly awkward; big buttons, which is nice, but no tactile feedback, which isn't perfect in all circumstances. Nice slide-out keyboard for quick messages (although I prefer tapping with FITALY). The apps that are designed well for the unit, work really well, like TomTom Navigator (big buttons, intuitive operation). The more traditional things, require delicate tapping. It's hard to believe WM6 overcomes most of these issues with accurate tapping, etc.. (TomTom pops up a full screen keyboard when it needs, text, does on the fly matching, etc., nice stuff.)
I'm impressed with the phone, bluetooth, wifi, nice PDA, probably one of the better phones/speakerphones I've used. Certainly not up for the droppings my old phones got, but I'll treat it like a PDA, and not a phone (and this one won't end up in the ocean, like my Razr
Anyhow, I saw HTC's next generation in between my 6700 and this announced model, and it's even nicer than mine; thinner, feels like magnetic jump when you slide open the keyboard, nice feel (but $200 + 3 year contract). I'm sure this even newer one is even nicer. HTC makes nice stuff. But it's no iPhone killer.
I almost worry about the lack of tactile buttons. Windows Mobile 5 is designed around certain buttons; a four way joystick, start/ok buttons, and left and right menu buttons (and talk/hangup buttons). They are quite handy for their purposes; you can do most anything you need to do on the phone, short of entering text, with just the buttons, which is handy in non-touchscreen moments. I worry that the new model might be a slight step back in that regard.
Anyhow, I'm sure it's a kick ass product, and probably a fraction of the price of the iPhone. But it's not the same thing. Windows Mobile, or people who augment it, are nowhere near on the verge of a UI revolution on the scale that Apple is capable of executing.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
It seems entirely sensible to me to insert fail-safe control mechanisms into genetically engineered products: we want a way to limit the damage they can cause in the event that something bad happens. We do NOT want the uncontrolled spread of something that turns out to have been an environmental disaster. For for trains, the equivalent is the dead-man's-switch.
If this means that farmers can't grow plants from seeds then I for one am happy with this. And actually, I'd like multiple off switches so that we can be as certain as we can that we will be able to contain the inevitable failures.
Farmers do not have to use the genetic engineered varietals, they do so in the belief that they'll be getting a better return on investment than with a normal plant.
I say all this as a GM believer. I don't see any way through to feeding the world, except through the use of GM, so I'm pro GM.
Sidenote: Ooh, I feel a software patent coming on! I started with an analogy to using Break/Ctrl+Alt+Delete/Ctrl+C to stop run-away programs, but these take a positive action to stop the program, whereas failsafe mechanisms require an action to continue. In multithreaded or multiprocess software designed for multi-core processors, if some program goes awry, you want the parts of the program to stop: they should be designed so that without positive input from the controlling process they cease funtioning. For instance one embodiment of the present invention is a computing device programmed such that if the child computation of a parent computation fails to receive a heartbeat signal from the parent computation, or any computation acting in its stead, then said computation should end. Remember you read it here first, and prepare yourself to pay me billionz!!! Oops, forgot to file it, and now it's in the public domain.
"Monopoly is just a game, Senator, I'm trying to control the fucking world!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Monsanto has a long history of using a combination of tactics, bribery, force and unethical means to get their products sold world wide.
n 060702.cfm
0 30606005912300.htm
This has apparently become a huge problem in developing countries like India where farmers are committing suicide in the thousands, because they are too poor to keep re-purchasing monsanto seeds every year - thanks to the terminator gene infested crops they do not germinate.
Contrary to what monsanto claims, the plants ability to resist pests and the use of pesticides has not declined.
In China, there have been huge uproars about how genetically modified Bt cotton, designed to control bollworm, is encouraging the spread of other types of insect pests. There has been a huge impact on the insect ecology, which is resulting in new problems for farmers.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/chinacotto
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2011/stories/20
Don't forget, Monsanto was one of the companies who produced and supplied agent orange ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange ) during the vietnam war, and they wouldn't blink before screwing half the world if it profited them.
Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca
Chuck Strahl - Minister of Agriculture and Agri-foods
Why don't we all just kill ourselves instead of killing everything around us we need to live?
There is NO EXCUSE for this level of greed.
Why not improve humans with this? I think there would be some short term suffering but in the long term it would be awesome when one of the Nexus 6 comes back and squeezes the evil corporate bastard's eyes out what thought of this damn monstrous idea.
If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
If the patents on these genemods expired after a decade or so, with generics moving in to provide price competition, and offering the inventing corporation a shot at making a decent return on their investment, then this wouldn't be such a Bad Thing.
But as warped as the existing patent laws are, corporations can extend the already ludicrously lengthy patent lives almost indefinitely, giving the company that owns the genemod patent an effective monopoly control over those particular crops, and the ability to suck all the profits out of those crops by pricing the seeds appropriately.
Why don't we just leave the plants alone?
They didn't ask to be modified like this. They were perfectly fine before we intervened. We intervened to make the plants more resistent to insects, to the heat and the cold, to shock during transportation... in short, more predictable, more reliable, more lucrative.
Who are we to decide what's best for the entire planet, anyway? We're only serving our own interests ($$$), and creating an imbalance in nature.
As humans, we are also imperfect. The errors we make have crept into dog breeding recently (article from May 23, 2007). As Slashdot readers, you probably know about all the bugs that have crept into computer programming, too. For instance: "I didn't think about the interaction between these two code modules, and my code crashed on start in that client's particular configuration. I'll send a patch ASAP." Now imagine a bit how you'd react if a scientist made any such oversight to even one gene of a species, sent the design into production, and in 25 years killed every specimen of a plant species (or even an animal species, or humans themselves), thus was unable to send a patch. Scary isn't it?
For these reasons, I suggest a complete ban of all genetic engineering. Our mistakes in this field will end up being genocides. However many scientists validate genetic research, however careful they are, however certain they are when making a modification... we will still end up killed by a simple... oops!
P.S.: A friend of mine wrote a great blog entry recently about human intelligence and how we are going to reverse evolution with it, then be completely owned; I think it applies very well to this story. Read it here, then think.
P.P.S: I'm Canadian.
If you believe that you are natural then anything you do is also natural by definition - This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on slashdot. What definition? Who's definition? I believe I'm natural. When I take a shit, that's nature. If I beat a rock into a pointy shape, that rock is no longer natural. Is it wrong to beat the rock into a pointy shape? Well, I don't think so, but that's what we need to decide.
If you believe you're supernatural, then you'd better commit suicide if you love "nature" so much. - Probably the second most retarted sentence ever. If you believe you're supernatural you're probably going to die pretty soon. No matter what you believe your body still needs some sort of intake. The Borg might be all advanced, but they're still half living organisms, they still have to eat and shit.My logic is far from perfect, but it's a far cry better than that inane crap that AC typed out.
Has anyone thought of making a sci-fi story/movie of this where the gene that prevents plants from germinating manages to infect mammalian (that's us) life? I mean isn't the process of germination (pollen fertilizes gamates) on a biological level the same thing as sperm fertilizing eggs?
I never saw "Children of Men" so I don't know why (just about) everyone in the movie was sterile. Could the pollen from these plants "infect" people? How about some virus picking them up from one of these plants? How about a virus genetically engineered with this gene extracted from this plant?
Actually, if this gene could really stop fertilization and distribute it with a virus, you could wipe out the entire biosphere! The virus, properly engineered, could spread asymptomatically so as to avoid any quarantine. Think of a virus like the one tha causes cervical cancer, I think it infects 70% of women. Because this virus doesn't kill the host (or even debilitate it) it could spread invisibly. With the appropriate vector species like birds (avian flu) it could achieve worldwide distribution. Everything that depended on sex to reproduce would go extinct in one generation. Plants, mammals, insects, fungi, fish, reptiles, etc...
Just a little bored here so thinking idle thoughts. This probably isn't going to be good for my Karma so I'd better post anonymously.
I get frustrated at our gov. when I hear about the companies creating cars that break on purpose after a number of years, or like this story suggests, crops that wont grow year after year. Why can't they leave mother nature alone. if anything make the crops stronger not weaker, especially with the ethanol movement in full swing. How long before the farmers revolt and boycott our companies over here, and move (yet again) to another country for importing the unmodified seeds, thereby affecting our econmomy even worse off then before.
.....Brad & Angelina have started that movement already.
It is enough that China and India have a big hold in the saturation markets, like clothing, textiles, electronics, etc.....now OUR FOOD?
Whats next... we import children from there too, oh wait....
Crap....
Crap....
There, I said it.
Greed greed greed.
We could feed the world, if only they beleived what we beleived and thought like us and paid us taxes and weren't poor...so let's give them GE foods, they'll die off in a number of decades or so. I mean, most of what the bottom forty percent of the population of the US aren't eating healthy foods anyways, modified GE corn products from MacDonald's mostly...go ahead, keep on messing with the gene pool you (*&*(&(& !!!!
End of Line.
but what do you suggest as an alternative. Without the FDA, I don't see how we'd ever have heard about the AntiFreeze in the toothpaste. The news services didn't report it until the FDA caught it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/