So the volume of apache servers is insignificant in comparison to the volume of commercial software servers? How about Radiohead making millions on an album they also gave for free? Does that example cover your "creativity isn't a manufactured product so profit isn't possible without copyright" argument?
The 14 year copyright term was granted in 1790. If you can't move your product to market faster than a proprietor of that day could you are seriously doing something wrong. Maybe one year is a little short, how about five? I'd respect five year copyrights as that would be reasonable. Although scope still needs limiting as things like plants should not be patentable.
Granting a short term in which no other person/entity may manufacture and sell a product save its creator is giving them first dibs at the market. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.
As per your argument the volume of FOSS/creative commons products are smaller than the volume of copyrighted products I say naturally so. So long as businesses are granted such privilege they will take it, and they will abuse it.
Copyright/Intellectual property laws in their current metastasized form actively hinder the progress of science and the arts.
why are there not parallel industries producing films, books, software and the like that compete effectively with the established, copyright-based model and produce new works in the same sort of quantity?
You mean like Linux? Open-source software in general? Creative commons works?
Again, do you have any objective evidence to support these claims?
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." US Constitution, Article I, Sect. 8
The original copyright term was actually 14 years.
Society defines what it considers socially acceptable behavior. In this context it appears a majority of society feel downloading content regardless of copyright/intellectual property law is acceptable. Such large numbers engage in the act industry itself can't handle attempting to police it. Therefor it is "socially acceptable" behavior.
"How many businesses do you think survive without any laws at all to ensure people play fair and don't use the fruits of their labors without paying towards the costs?"
I don't care. I care about my rights to privacy. I care about my tax dollars being wasted to protect outmoded business models while critical infrastructure is in shambles. I care about my fellow citizens being harassed by corporate interests.
Functioning, profit earning markets require neither copyright nor intellectual property. The goods still have to be manufactured even if no one owns that right exclusively. The original copyright agreement gave the inventor a short term exclusivity (ten years then which should equate to about one year now) so they could be first to market. It did not grant perpetual ownership nor ownership of the idea itself. Corporations have repeatedly bribed our government into extending and modifying the terms of that societal contract in their favor. People now ignore the contract, and are wholly justified in doing so.
Google have figured out the only way to monetize blogging, mapping, email, news, search, 3d visualization, online doc collaboration, etc, etc. is advertising. People are not going to pay for this type software or service. Corporations will, as they demand and expect a different standard. Hence "Google earth pro" and "Red Had Enterprise Linux". Some companies get this, and they are doing well. Other companies are trying to find ways of monetizing what is now free (and I mean in practical reality not price or law) and blaming Google for their failed business model.
No I really do mean they are leaving people for dead. In my time spent in waiting rooms and lines - I've met them, and talked with them. There's a dollar value assigned to your life. Any treatment you may need above and beyond that, tough. It almost sounds reasonable. I could understand in theory not spending all the money to save one, when you are trying to save them all. Only in a system where costs are so far inflated from any reality (and most of the costs are administrative - read suits who do nothing) assigning such a value becomes obscene.
I was replying for me, and for us all. I'm just not into blaming the sick. Sure, perhaps better decision making could have prevent illness. It doesn't matter. I don't believe in leaving people for dead even if they are incredibly stupid. It's also difficult to make informed health decisions when you don't have access to health care professionals isn't it?
I don't eat cheeseburgers - that ain't kosher. I eat logs of organic fresh fruits, veggies, and grains. I have a dietitian. I'd exercise too, but that's a bad idea for people with neuropathy. Am I to blame for my primary condition? Yes. Does it matter? No.
There are many problems with a free market health care system. It's a supply and demand type system - which should never be used for non-optional/substitutable goods and services. Can you lower your demand for health care? Consumers have no recourse. It's not like you can say, "Well that's a little high for heart surgery, I think I'll shop around first". or "I suppose I don't really need those antibiotics this week".
I'm one of the uninsured, and preexisting conditions ensure I'm insurable. It's not possible to pay for your health care (unless you're a multi-millionaire). Here's what that means literally: I've been left for dead. I'm not alone either. There are millions of Americans suffering illness who cannot pay for care, and cannot get insurance. They are left in limbo until they either die, or become sick enough to qualify for disability benefits (in the governments eyes - they've denied people I know in quarantine... )
At that point all you dear readers get to pay my medical bills anyway. Only now they are my inflated medical bills. Prevention is far cheaper than disease management. If you need an example - Had I received something like treatment over the last ten years I may not have neuropathy on top of my primary diagnosis. Now I do. Now the cost of treatment rises exponentially.
They do not care how much costs rise. We are the ones paying.
Then perhaps you've heard of Immortal Technique, Ani Difranco?
Record companies just aren't necessary - they are distributors. We have a newer, more efficient distribution system now known as the internet.
You've mentioned a possible way for Record Companies to shift their focus - to PR agents.
Every useful reason to keep them you mentioned related to their skills in public relations, not their efficient distribution methods or copyright policy.
If you're in the music business to maximize anticipated profit margins, then probably you would need a PR agent. They specialize in packaging crap.
I'm not trying to be harsh. It just seems one of the labels main purposes is convincing people they want to buy crap. Good musicians become known by virtue of talent.
The ISP's are content providers. There's a reason why Time Warner and Comcast (even AT&T wants in the VOD game) want you spending less time in front of your PC and more time in front of your TV. They need you to keep paying both bills. In fact, they are going to severely degrade services while demanding you pay more.
It won't protect me from my uncle... Or any other child - this stuff isn't new. As if no child was ever molested before the internet.
These are nothing but keywords - to elicit emotional response and push through their agenda. That way if you oppose them, they can say "You support kiddie porn!"
Maybe the interests in bio-fuels because they want a clean method to power currently existing models? Mercedes owners are often car collector types. They may be perfect happy to buy a new model, but they won't wan to give up their old model necessarily.
I've been a happy Alltel customer since December - glad to know I can look forward to higher prices, lower customer service, and a throttled internet connection - now likely to be run straight through NSA central. I'm thrilled.
I had AT&T's mobile service. It was 59.99 unlimited - there were no caps I'm aware of - I was using this for primary internet including torrents and all. I'm currently using Alltel - same 59.99 for a wireless usb card - unlimited. Alltel is much faster in my area. They also offer the service for only 29.99 unlimited via tethered phone... Two of my friends also use this service - as primary internet with no complaints so far. (other than having customer service inform me "it's not possible to connect to our internet using Linux... ")
or two hatching such plots. They are the ones who own the politicians. Perhaps it's not really insidious as all that though. Prisons mean more jobs for constituents, and more contributions from privatized corrections companies. Prisons also provide free labor. It's just the usual motive - money.
Why is it possible? Because plants can pass their traits to others.
Where's my evidence? In my field - color is a genetic trait - just like infertility. If plants can pass varying degrees of their color - then they can pass varying degrees of infertility also.
No - GMO are not proven safe. You are a liar. Scientists do not agree with you - read. Scientific studies do not agree with you - read. This is not a science vs. religion argument. You might think yourself Richard Dawkins and me Ben Stein - but I'm an atheist myself.
You are right, the real world always does win. In the real world Americans aren't so healthy after all. Noticed the epidemics in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc, etc, etc? Considering that the rest of the word doesn't have our epidemic levels of these problems it might be fair to say it's related to our diet. In fact scientist after scientist has said it's related to our diet.
"All crops are GM crops! There's not a single crop grown by humans that hasn't been shaped by eons of genetic manipulation. We've been mucking around with DNA since the dawn of civilization. The beginning of agriculture is the beginning of human manipulation of DNA."
And you are calling me ignorant? No - no farmer has ever inserted fish genes into tomatoes. No farmer has ever inserted bacteria into soybeans. No farmer has ever crossed the species barrier. That is specifically the realm of gmo's. They are not the same at all. That is a lie you are perpetuating. Do you work for Monsanto? Or does you dad? Clearly you aren't very old - I can tell by your very poor manners.
"And as a result milk is $3 a gallon instead of $10, and poor children can afford it.
Christ you're talking about something that comes out of an evolved sweat gland. There's pus in milk anyway, I guarantee it."
And you can't read. I said 30% higher levels of puss - which does imply that non BGH milk also has puss - just 30% less. Don't you dare tell me about the poor affording milk. What would you know about it. Have you ever had to scrape your change to buy milk - or anything? I seriously doubt it... I have. Poor people starve because we have allowed food to be sold by markets. Markets work on supply and demand. The higher a products demand, the higher it's price. Do you think it's possible for people to lower their demand for food? I just gave you two quotes from doctors stating BGH is not safe. Doctors. What are you? Why are you more correct than doctors? Here read them again
""This alarms medical experts, such as Dr. Stuart Levy of Tufts University. Dr. Levy warns of the growing human health crisis posed by "antibiotic resistance."
"Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, internationally renowned toxicologist, warns, "all women from conception to death will now be exposed to an additional breast cancer risk due to milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone."
"The majority of the world's population have a number of counterfactual beliefs."
"And not to defend Monsanto's legal shenanigans, but it's hard to see that they had much choice. Not acting in response to a plausible act of infringement jeopardizes their patents down the road - if they don't act in defense, the technologies in question could be held to be in the public domain."
That's why people of the world starve. That's always why people of the world have starved. Because people like you defend the right of companies to profit off life's very substance. Because those who cannot pay - starve and die. There's enough food now. There's always been enough food. It sits in warehouses. It is thrown in garbage bins daily. Yet you are gullible enough to actually believe some company wants to solve *world hunger* with technology. We can solve world hunger right now. There's just no profit in it.
Oh sorry - you are right - that is my typo with air... Oops.
"As a result of your hysterical, ignorant fearmongering, yes. Congratulations. The very people around the world most in the position to benefit from GMO crops are now too afraid to grow them. You've doomed them to death by starvation."
Wait a minute? I'm the fear monger? Please, please read some of the actual scientific studies in regards to actual safety of GM foods. You'll find it's not the panacea of world hunger you imagine. If it were - they why are farmers killing themselves by the dozens daily in India when GM crops fail?
Oh - I'm not the starter of this tread, absolute evil wasn't my term - but I do agree with it, and here's why. Food is not intellectual property.
Let me explain this visually. I have a field. There are red flower in the middle in a circle. These are surrounded by yellow flowers in a square. These flower produce more than one head per season - just cut the old head when it dies and a new one sprouts. This actually allows you to see evolution in one growing season. The yellow flowers closest to the red are now orange. The shades of orange fade like a gradient until you get to the flowers on the edges which are still bright yellow. This is why I can perfectly visualize terminator seed crops surrounded by non-terminator seed crops becoming not completely *sterile* - but less prolific reproducers. Imagine the plants closest to the terminator plants are 75% less fertile - gradient outward just like with color. That is scientifically possible no? Do you think it's acceptable to allow a corporations which benefits from selling seed to introduce seeds that could possible weaken it's competitors ability to produce?
I keep asking your for data because I do read - and I'm fully aware there's not a scientist alive who isn't a Monsanto employee willing to state gm crops pose no threat in terms of ecology or health. If we cannot prove they pose no threat - why is 70% of America planted with GM crop? You think that's wise? How often have they been wrong? Agent orange? aspartame? How old are you kid?
Take for example Bovine Growth Hormone - another Monsanto product. They insist it's perfectly safe - yet the scientific studies done prove BGH cows have dramatically higher rates of reproductive problems and utter infections. Which is why BGH milk contains 30% higher puss levels. To compensate cows are then injected with mass quantities of antibiotics.
"This alarms medical experts, such as Dr. Stuart Levy of Tufts University. Dr. Levy warns of the growing human health crisis posed by "antibiotic resistance."
"Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, internationally renowned toxicologist, warns, "all women from conception to death will now be exposed to an additional breast cancer risk due to milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone."
I've defended my positions which sources and explanations. You care to do anything besides rant and claim *only I* am concerned about the safety of gm products? A cursory bit of googling would inform you the majority of the world's population are opposed to this. Not because we're ranting lunatics - because we've read the studies, and they aren't good.
"Control of what? If people don't like Monsanto's seeds, they're perfectly free to buy them from somewhere else, or hold over their heirloom seeds as, you say, farmers have been doing forever."
Ha Ha! So you haven't heard about Monsanto suing farmers whose land they contaminating forcing them to destroy what was once their heirloom seed? For fucks sake read the news.
Again, you are right - I'm not a geneticist. Perhaps my words aren't the correct scientific words. I'm just trying to explain to you plants pass their dna to surrounding plants. Every scientific study/article I've read is inconclusive on whether or not terminator seeds can/will cause lower fertility rates/smaller harvests in surrounding non terminator plants.
Again - show me the study and you win. So far all you've done is resort to personal attacks, calling me things like "you people". If you are right - show the data. Until you have that data perhaps you should stop calling me (and the few billion other people who take my opinion) hysterical. Do you even realize most of the world objects vehemently to this stuff?
We are not hysterical. We simply believe in caution and study before profit. You've never heard "air on the side of caution"? How am I the uninformed here...
Okay then - enjoy your dinner! I sincerely wish you health and good medical insurance.
The seedless varieties you speak of aren't actually seedless either. They just have very small seeds - because farmers like myself saved seeds year after year displaying that trait.
Yes - the pure DNA in the originating plant causes what you called "suicide" in that it doesn't produce offspring. Yes - that would be evolutionarily self defeating as you stated. However - do remember that traits are not passed "in full". You are some combination of your ancestors...
When you can produce me a scientific study conclusively proving terminator/gmo plants pass non of their traits to surrounding non terminator/gmo plants - then you will have won this argument. Until then you are doing nothing more than the hysterical ranting you accuse me of. From my experienced perspective - I can quite imagine this terminator trait resulting in "less prolific" reproduction in nearby plants of the same family. Much like growing red and yellow flowers of the same species near each other results in orange offspring...
You're still thinking in terms of human reproduction - where sterile means the end of your gene set. Plants are different.
"There is a concern that V-GURT plants could cross-pollinate with non-genetically modified plants, either in the wild or on the fields of farmers who do not adopt the technology. Though the V-GURT plants are supposed to produce sterile seeds, there is concern that this trait will not be expressed in the first generation of a small percentage of these plants, but be expressed in later generations. This *does not seem to be much of a problem in the wild*, as a sterile plant would naturally be selected out of a population within one generation of trait expression. This is however a problem in some farming systems, especially for indigenous groups who save seed rather than purchase it from developers. The loss of the ability for such farmers to save seed may lead to decreased agroecological biodiversity on their farms and decreased yields of affected crops." - this is from Wikipedia - all other research I've done states basically the same - "well it shouldn't be a problem, but we aren't entirely certain."
Even if you are correct - in that terminator seeds will not lead to increased reproduction problems among non terminator plants - there's still the issue of allowing a transnational corporation control of the world's food supply...
Want to pipe in for support of that?
I'm not conclusively saying these plants *will* cause contamination beyond repair. I'm saying I can certainly see how they may have negative impact. Since we are talking about the world food supply - I prefer to air on the side of extreme caution.
Slashdot Mirror
So the volume of apache servers is insignificant in comparison to the volume of commercial software servers? How about Radiohead making millions on an album they also gave for free? Does that example cover your "creativity isn't a manufactured product so profit isn't possible without copyright" argument?
The 14 year copyright term was granted in 1790. If you can't move your product to market faster than a proprietor of that day could you are seriously doing something wrong. Maybe one year is a little short, how about five? I'd respect five year copyrights as that would be reasonable. Although scope still needs limiting as things like plants should not be patentable.
Granting a short term in which no other person/entity may manufacture and sell a product save its creator is giving them first dibs at the market. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.
As per your argument the volume of FOSS/creative commons products are smaller than the volume of copyrighted products I say naturally so. So long as businesses are granted such privilege they will take it, and they will abuse it. Copyright/Intellectual property laws in their current metastasized form actively hinder the progress of science and the arts.
You mean like Linux? Open-source software in general? Creative commons works?
The original copyright term was actually 14 years.
I don't care. I care about my rights to privacy. I care about my tax dollars being wasted to protect outmoded business models while critical infrastructure is in shambles. I care about my fellow citizens being harassed by corporate interests.
Functioning, profit earning markets require neither copyright nor intellectual property. The goods still have to be manufactured even if no one owns that right exclusively. The original copyright agreement gave the inventor a short term exclusivity (ten years then which should equate to about one year now) so they could be first to market. It did not grant perpetual ownership nor ownership of the idea itself. Corporations have repeatedly bribed our government into extending and modifying the terms of that societal contract in their favor. People now ignore the contract, and are wholly justified in doing so.
Google have figured out the only way to monetize blogging, mapping, email, news, search, 3d visualization, online doc collaboration, etc, etc. is advertising. People are not going to pay for this type software or service. Corporations will, as they demand and expect a different standard. Hence "Google earth pro" and "Red Had Enterprise Linux". Some companies get this, and they are doing well. Other companies are trying to find ways of monetizing what is now free (and I mean in practical reality not price or law) and blaming Google for their failed business model.
I was welcoming "any" new overlords...
No I really do mean they are leaving people for dead. In my time spent in waiting rooms and lines - I've met them, and talked with them. There's a dollar value assigned to your life. Any treatment you may need above and beyond that, tough. It almost sounds reasonable. I could understand in theory not spending all the money to save one, when you are trying to save them all. Only in a system where costs are so far inflated from any reality (and most of the costs are administrative - read suits who do nothing) assigning such a value becomes obscene.
I was replying for me, and for us all. I'm just not into blaming the sick. Sure, perhaps better decision making could have prevent illness. It doesn't matter. I don't believe in leaving people for dead even if they are incredibly stupid. It's also difficult to make informed health decisions when you don't have access to health care professionals isn't it?
I don't eat cheeseburgers - that ain't kosher. I eat logs of organic fresh fruits, veggies, and grains. I have a dietitian. I'd exercise too, but that's a bad idea for people with neuropathy. Am I to blame for my primary condition? Yes. Does it matter? No.
There are many problems with a free market health care system. It's a supply and demand type system - which should never be used for non-optional/substitutable goods and services. Can you lower your demand for health care? Consumers have no recourse. It's not like you can say, "Well that's a little high for heart surgery, I think I'll shop around first". or "I suppose I don't really need those antibiotics this week".
I'm one of the uninsured, and preexisting conditions ensure I'm insurable. It's not possible to pay for your health care (unless you're a multi-millionaire). Here's what that means literally: I've been left for dead. I'm not alone either. There are millions of Americans suffering illness who cannot pay for care, and cannot get insurance. They are left in limbo until they either die, or become sick enough to qualify for disability benefits (in the governments eyes - they've denied people I know in quarantine... )
At that point all you dear readers get to pay my medical bills anyway. Only now they are my inflated medical bills. Prevention is far cheaper than disease management. If you need an example - Had I received something like treatment over the last ten years I may not have neuropathy on top of my primary diagnosis. Now I do. Now the cost of treatment rises exponentially.
They do not care how much costs rise. We are the ones paying.
Then perhaps you've heard of Immortal Technique, Ani Difranco? Record companies just aren't necessary - they are distributors. We have a newer, more efficient distribution system now known as the internet. You've mentioned a possible way for Record Companies to shift their focus - to PR agents. Every useful reason to keep them you mentioned related to their skills in public relations, not their efficient distribution methods or copyright policy.
If you're in the music business to maximize anticipated profit margins, then probably you would need a PR agent. They specialize in packaging crap. I'm not trying to be harsh. It just seems one of the labels main purposes is convincing people they want to buy crap. Good musicians become known by virtue of talent.
The ISP's are content providers. There's a reason why Time Warner and Comcast (even AT&T wants in the VOD game) want you spending less time in front of your PC and more time in front of your TV. They need you to keep paying both bills. In fact, they are going to severely degrade services while demanding you pay more.
It won't protect me from my uncle... Or any other child - this stuff isn't new. As if no child was ever molested before the internet. These are nothing but keywords - to elicit emotional response and push through their agenda. That way if you oppose them, they can say "You support kiddie porn!"
Maybe the interests in bio-fuels because they want a clean method to power currently existing models? Mercedes owners are often car collector types. They may be perfect happy to buy a new model, but they won't wan to give up their old model necessarily.
You mean something like Openbox, Fluxbox, or Jwm on the desktop. You could do that with ease - apt-get install ...
I've been a happy Alltel customer since December - glad to know I can look forward to higher prices, lower customer service, and a throttled internet connection - now likely to be run straight through NSA central. I'm thrilled.
The plan is going absolutely wonderful - if you are a shareholder in an oil company...
I had AT&T's mobile service. It was 59.99 unlimited - there were no caps I'm aware of - I was using this for primary internet including torrents and all. I'm currently using Alltel - same 59.99 for a wireless usb card - unlimited. Alltel is much faster in my area. They also offer the service for only 29.99 unlimited via tethered phone... Two of my friends also use this service - as primary internet with no complaints so far. (other than having customer service inform me "it's not possible to connect to our internet using Linux... ")
They? Sure you won't be among the dead yourself?
or two hatching such plots. They are the ones who own the politicians. Perhaps it's not really insidious as all that though. Prisons mean more jobs for constituents, and more contributions from privatized corrections companies. Prisons also provide free labor. It's just the usual motive - money.
Holy shit...
Why is it possible? Because plants can pass their traits to others.
Where's my evidence? In my field - color is a genetic trait - just like infertility. If plants can pass varying degrees of their color - then they can pass varying degrees of infertility also.
No - GMO are not proven safe. You are a liar. Scientists do not agree with you - read. Scientific studies do not agree with you - read. This is not a science vs. religion argument. You might think yourself Richard Dawkins and me Ben Stein - but I'm an atheist myself.
You are right, the real world always does win. In the real world Americans aren't so healthy after all. Noticed the epidemics in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc, etc, etc? Considering that the rest of the word doesn't have our epidemic levels of these problems it might be fair to say it's related to our diet. In fact scientist after scientist has said it's related to our diet.
"All crops are GM crops! There's not a single crop grown by humans that hasn't been shaped by eons of genetic manipulation. We've been mucking around with DNA since the dawn of civilization. The beginning of agriculture is the beginning of human manipulation of DNA."
And you are calling me ignorant? No - no farmer has ever inserted fish genes into tomatoes. No farmer has ever inserted bacteria into soybeans. No farmer has ever crossed the species barrier. That is specifically the realm of gmo's. They are not the same at all. That is a lie you are perpetuating. Do you work for Monsanto? Or does you dad? Clearly you aren't very old - I can tell by your very poor manners.
"And as a result milk is $3 a gallon instead of $10, and poor children can afford it.
Christ you're talking about something that comes out of an evolved sweat gland. There's pus in milk anyway, I guarantee it."
And you can't read. I said 30% higher levels of puss - which does imply that non BGH milk also has puss - just 30% less. Don't you dare tell me about the poor affording milk. What would you know about it. Have you ever had to scrape your change to buy milk - or anything? I seriously doubt it... I have. Poor people starve because we have allowed food to be sold by markets. Markets work on supply and demand. The higher a products demand, the higher it's price. Do you think it's possible for people to lower their demand for food? I just gave you two quotes from doctors stating BGH is not safe. Doctors. What are you? Why are you more correct than doctors? Here read them again
""This alarms medical experts, such as Dr. Stuart Levy of Tufts University. Dr. Levy warns of the growing human health crisis posed by "antibiotic resistance."
"Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, internationally renowned toxicologist, warns, "all women from conception to death will now be exposed to an additional breast cancer risk due to milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone."
"The majority of the world's population have a number of counterfactual beliefs."
Yes - that's true. You are proof.
I'm not done with you yet kid...
"And not to defend Monsanto's legal shenanigans, but it's hard to see that they had much choice. Not acting in response to a plausible act of infringement jeopardizes their patents down the road - if they don't act in defense, the technologies in question could be held to be in the public domain."
That's why people of the world starve. That's always why people of the world have starved. Because people like you defend the right of companies to profit off life's very substance. Because those who cannot pay - starve and die. There's enough food now. There's always been enough food. It sits in warehouses. It is thrown in garbage bins daily. Yet you are gullible enough to actually believe some company wants to solve *world hunger* with technology. We can solve world hunger right now. There's just no profit in it.
Oh sorry - you are right - that is my typo with air... Oops.
"As a result of your hysterical, ignorant fearmongering, yes. Congratulations. The very people around the world most in the position to benefit from GMO crops are now too afraid to grow them. You've doomed them to death by starvation."
Wait a minute? I'm the fear monger? Please, please read some of the actual scientific studies in regards to actual safety of GM foods. You'll find it's not the panacea of world hunger you imagine. If it were - they why are farmers killing themselves by the dozens daily in India when GM crops fail?
Oh - I'm not the starter of this tread, absolute evil wasn't my term - but I do agree with it, and here's why. Food is not intellectual property.
Let me explain this visually. I have a field. There are red flower in the middle in a circle. These are surrounded by yellow flowers in a square. These flower produce more than one head per season - just cut the old head when it dies and a new one sprouts. This actually allows you to see evolution in one growing season. The yellow flowers closest to the red are now orange. The shades of orange fade like a gradient until you get to the flowers on the edges which are still bright yellow. This is why I can perfectly visualize terminator seed crops surrounded by non-terminator seed crops becoming not completely *sterile* - but less prolific reproducers. Imagine the plants closest to the terminator plants are 75% less fertile - gradient outward just like with color. That is scientifically possible no? Do you think it's acceptable to allow a corporations which benefits from selling seed to introduce seeds that could possible weaken it's competitors ability to produce?
I keep asking your for data because I do read - and I'm fully aware there's not a scientist alive who isn't a Monsanto employee willing to state gm crops pose no threat in terms of ecology or health. If we cannot prove they pose no threat - why is 70% of America planted with GM crop? You think that's wise? How often have they been wrong? Agent orange? aspartame? How old are you kid?
Take for example Bovine Growth Hormone - another Monsanto product. They insist it's perfectly safe - yet the scientific studies done prove BGH cows have dramatically higher rates of reproductive problems and utter infections. Which is why BGH milk contains 30% higher puss levels. To compensate cows are then injected with mass quantities of antibiotics.
"This alarms medical experts, such as Dr. Stuart Levy of Tufts University. Dr. Levy warns of the growing human health crisis posed by "antibiotic resistance."
"Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, internationally renowned toxicologist, warns, "all women from conception to death will now be exposed to an additional breast cancer risk due to milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone."
I've defended my positions which sources and explanations. You care to do anything besides rant and claim *only I* am concerned about the safety of gm products? A cursory bit of googling would inform you the majority of the world's population are opposed to this. Not because we're ranting lunatics - because we've read the studies, and they aren't good.
"Control of what? If people don't like Monsanto's seeds, they're perfectly free to buy them from somewhere else, or hold over their heirloom seeds as, you say, farmers have been doing forever."
Ha Ha! So you haven't heard about Monsanto suing farmers whose land they contaminating forcing them to destroy what was once their heirloom seed? For fucks sake read the news.
Again, you are right - I'm not a geneticist. Perhaps my words aren't the correct scientific words. I'm just trying to explain to you plants pass their dna to surrounding plants. Every scientific study/article I've read is inconclusive on whether or not terminator seeds can/will cause lower fertility rates/smaller harvests in surrounding non terminator plants.
Again - show me the study and you win. So far all you've done is resort to personal attacks, calling me things like "you people". If you are right - show the data. Until you have that data perhaps you should stop calling me (and the few billion other people who take my opinion) hysterical. Do you even realize most of the world objects vehemently to this stuff?
We are not hysterical. We simply believe in caution and study before profit. You've never heard "air on the side of caution"? How am I the uninformed here...
Okay then - enjoy your dinner! I sincerely wish you health and good medical insurance.
The seedless varieties you speak of aren't actually seedless either. They just have very small seeds - because farmers like myself saved seeds year after year displaying that trait.
Yes - the pure DNA in the originating plant causes what you called "suicide" in that it doesn't produce offspring. Yes - that would be evolutionarily self defeating as you stated. However - do remember that traits are not passed "in full". You are some combination of your ancestors...
When you can produce me a scientific study conclusively proving terminator/gmo plants pass non of their traits to surrounding non terminator/gmo plants - then you will have won this argument. Until then you are doing nothing more than the hysterical ranting you accuse me of. From my experienced perspective - I can quite imagine this terminator trait resulting in "less prolific" reproduction in nearby plants of the same family. Much like growing red and yellow flowers of the same species near each other results in orange offspring...
You're still thinking in terms of human reproduction - where sterile means the end of your gene set. Plants are different.
"There is a concern that V-GURT plants could cross-pollinate with non-genetically modified plants, either in the wild or on the fields of farmers who do not adopt the technology. Though the V-GURT plants are supposed to produce sterile seeds, there is concern that this trait will not be expressed in the first generation of a small percentage of these plants, but be expressed in later generations. This *does not seem to be much of a problem in the wild*, as a sterile plant would naturally be selected out of a population within one generation of trait expression. This is however a problem in some farming systems, especially for indigenous groups who save seed rather than purchase it from developers. The loss of the ability for such farmers to save seed may lead to decreased agroecological biodiversity on their farms and decreased yields of affected crops." - this is from Wikipedia - all other research I've done states basically the same - "well it shouldn't be a problem, but we aren't entirely certain."
Even if you are correct - in that terminator seeds will not lead to increased reproduction problems among non terminator plants - there's still the issue of allowing a transnational corporation control of the world's food supply...
Want to pipe in for support of that? I'm not conclusively saying these plants *will* cause contamination beyond repair. I'm saying I can certainly see how they may have negative impact. Since we are talking about the world food supply - I prefer to air on the side of extreme caution.