• Login
sketchucation logo sketchucation
  • Login
🔌 Quick Selection | Try Didier Bur's reworked classic extension that supercharges selections in SketchUp Download

Mon$anto vs. Mother Earth

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Corner Bar
249 Posts 26 Posters 12.5k Views 26 Watching
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Offline
    dale
    last edited by 19 Apr 2013, 14:58

    @pbacot said:

    For labeling I tend to think the non-GMO producers should just label theirs, and like organics, charge more! 😉

    Peter
    The problem I see with this is, because there is no requirement for companies to have to reveal that the oats they offer for sale are genetically modified, those toasty oat flakes in your granola labelled "organic" might currently be GMO, and the final manufacturer, who may have only good intent in producing "organic" products would be unaware.

    Just monkeying around....like Monsanto

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • P Offline
      pbacot
      last edited by 19 Apr 2013, 15:04

      Right, Dale. It would have to be a separate designation and those who participate would have to submit to the program, whatever that is. BTW there's not a lot of money for these participatory programs so the level of review may vary. Ongoing technical proof might not be affordable.

      MacOSX MojaveSketchUp Pro v19 Twilight v2 Thea v3 PowerCADD

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • M Offline
        mics_54
        last edited by 19 Apr 2013, 15:51

        The "Science 2.0" name irritation would be one of those fringe arguments. I thought it was more a catchy geek/internet/scientific sounding name...but I/m not trying to discredit them because looking at the list of related articles on the subject it appears there are proponents of both sides.

        Am I to assume that since your wife attended UC Davis she is complicit in the big evil chemical farming industrial complex? Probably not.

        OK so you don't like any of the sources for information on GMOs that I found. Could you please direct me to your favorite "go to" site so I can read some of the more accurate information.

        I noticed everyone is stepping over the link to the article on Mark Lynas like a gift someones dog left on the sidewalk.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M Offline
          mics_54
          last edited by 19 Apr 2013, 16:22

          I guess this whole argument is really about perspectives or perceptions.

          The evil "better mouse trap" makers aren't interested in inventing "fine designs" or making life better. They only want to make filthy riches and kill the poor lil mice!

          I have a question. If you take the wealth possessed by the evil american corporation CEO and give it to a poor person...does the poor person instantly become evil...or does it take time.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P Offline
            pbacot
            last edited by 19 Apr 2013, 19:57

            I'll try to get back to those links. Probably next week. I just read the last one and it didn't impress me.

            My wife was slave to the machine, a capitalist running dog or what have you!

            Someone else will have to answer your question about evil. I don't know who you are talking about and why they would be evil.

            MacOSX MojaveSketchUp Pro v19 Twilight v2 Thea v3 PowerCADD

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M Offline
              mics_54
              last edited by 20 Apr 2013, 00:51

              ..just a little sarcasm but terms like "x industrial complex" implies (to me) a dastardly homogenous characterization..

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • P Offline
                pbacot
                last edited by 20 Apr 2013, 03:30

                I guess from experience that's what I see. I don't consider it evil. When Eisenhower warned of "the military industrial complex", I don't believe he thought it was evil, just dangerous. You could be onto something: different perceptions.

                MacOSX MojaveSketchUp Pro v19 Twilight v2 Thea v3 PowerCADD

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M Offline
                  mics_54
                  last edited by 20 Apr 2013, 03:47

                  I actually had written another few lines about perceptions and thought it too obvious.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S Offline
                    solo
                    last edited by 20 Apr 2013, 21:10

                    To anyone partaking in the march, if you cannot find the details about your area let me know and I will pass it on to you.

                    305723_570898859611130_783468935_n.jpg

                    http://www.solos-art.com

                    If you see a toilet in your dreams do not use it.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M Offline
                      mics_54
                      last edited by 20 Apr 2013, 21:56

                      Be sure and take video!

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M Offline
                        Mike Lucey
                        last edited by 23 Apr 2013, 13:10

                        Reading a little more on the progress re: Monsanto vs. Mother Earth

                        While I am all for progress and when it comes to it, patent protection, I do draw the line at total monopolies!

                        There is a case coming up which might clarify matters!

                        *Monsanto sued small farmers to protect seed patents, report says

                        http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents

                        Agricultural giant has won more than $23m from its targets, but one case is being heard at Supreme Court this month

                        "Corporations did not create seeds and many are challenging the existing patent system that allows private companies to assert ownership over a resource that is vital to survival and that historically has been in the public domain,"

                        The Bowman case has come about after the 75-year-old farmer bought soybeans from a grain elevator near his farm in Indiana and used them to plant a late-season second crop. He then used some of the resulting seeds to replant such crops in subsequent years. Because he bought them from a third party which put no restrictions on their use, Bowman has argued he is legally able to plant and replant them and that Monsanto's patent on the seeds' genes does not apply.*

                        The shareholders in Monsanto are of course entitled to their dividends and protection of their investment but at the same time I feel farmers, the real human food cultivators / providers of the planet must be allowed to use the best available methods of growing even if this involves getting into 'gray' areas!

                        Ideally its farmers that should be the major shareholders in the likes of Monsanto, not stockbrokers and such. I would have much more faith in farmers doing the right thing for the economy and society in general. From my experience they are not primarily motivated by the bottom line ($$$), at least the ones that I have know over my life. Both my parents came from farmer stock and I spent much of my youth on my grandparents' farms. I imagine my grandparents would not be able to comprehend the concept of being able to patent a seed which resulted in a crop they grew not withstanding that they initially purchased the seed from a supplier!

                        Support us so we can support you! Upgrade to Premium Membership!

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • M Offline
                          mics_54
                          last edited by 23 Apr 2013, 16:54

                          This article is quite revealing in regard to the case in point.
                          I'm not sure where the patent law thing will end up but I can understand how a bad decision could impact future R&D in all areas.

                          Link Preview Image
                          Supremes Unsympathetic to Farmer's Deception at Center of Monsanto GMO Soybean SCOTUS Patent Challenge

                          The decision will turn on the minutiae of patent law, but the implications will extend to all cutting-edge technologies.

                          favicon

                          Forbes (www.forbes.com)

                          As for farmers being more trustworthy and amenable to humanities welfare and their likelihood to "do the right thing for the economy and society in general" ...

                          ...they do seem to be pretty shrewd in knowing a good thing when they see one...They apparently like GMOs. Note that Bowman's motive was apparently the bottom line ($$$) by his own statements.

                          I also find the title of this thread amusing in that we apparently have the left, the right and the more pragmatic moderates flip flopping sides and playing goose goose duck or musical chairs or something.... I couldn't find a more ironic title than Monsanto (science) vs Mother Earth (????) If there is a "mother earth" she'd be telling you...adapt or die.

                          I have to say I really enjoy this topic...I have learned a lot about GMO. ☀

                          anyway I seem to be hogging the thread so I will let you have it...unless you address me specifically. 😎

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M Offline
                            Mike Lucey
                            last edited by 23 Apr 2013, 20:45

                            Mmmmm, farmers! Yes, I agree they are a shrewd bunch when it come to looking for a bargain! I have done business with lots of them over the years and have found that they like to squeeze the last penny out of a deal. But I have always found them quite fair and honourable.

                            I do however feel that in general they put the welfare of the land (Mother Earth) before profits as they realise that she demands respect and slaps back when abused.

                            I don't know how much more farm productivity can be pushed. I somehow doubt that there is much more in it. I think we should be looking a ways of encouraging a sustainable World human population rather than pushing Mother Earth beyond what she can deliver in a sustainable way. Then again, thats another debate, one that we have broached here many times.

                            Support us so we can support you! Upgrade to Premium Membership!

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • S Offline
                              solo
                              last edited by 25 Apr 2013, 17:59

                              Got some time to learn?

                              Here is a course of lectures on Permaculture, the crux of this whole debate IMO.

                              Permaculture means ‘permanent culture,’ (or ‘permanent agriculture’) and …’is the conscious design and maintenance of cultivated ecosystems that have the diversity, stability, and resilience of a natural ecosystem.’ (Bill Mollison)

                              http://courses.ncsu.edu/hs432/common/podcasts/

                              http://www.solos-art.com

                              If you see a toilet in your dreams do not use it.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • M Offline
                                mics_54
                                last edited by 26 Apr 2013, 16:32

                                @unknownuser said:

                                the conscious design and maintenance of cultivated ecosystems that have the diversity, stability, and resilience of a natural ecosystem

                                I can't think of a better description of what Monsanto does.

                                ...except they make improvements much faster than nature.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • D Offline
                                  dale
                                  last edited by 26 Apr 2013, 16:54

                                  Sorry, but I can't see the saturation of soils with glyphosate fitting into that description.

                                  Just monkeying around....like Monsanto

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • M Offline
                                    mics_54
                                    last edited by 26 Apr 2013, 18:29

                                    words like "saturation" are really scarey.

                                    Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.

                                    Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.

                                    The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in toxicity.[46] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.

                                    If the EPA considers it low risk...you can probably drink it.

                                    It isn't agent orange.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • majidM Offline
                                      majid
                                      last edited by 26 Apr 2013, 18:38

                                      let's trust the nature!


                                      15215_10200817411656197_1603578810_n.jpg

                                      My inspiring A, B, Sketches book: https://sketchucation.com/shop/books/intermediate/2612-alphabet-inspired-sketches--inspiring-drills-for-architects--3d-artists-and-designers-

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • olisheaO Offline
                                        olishea
                                        last edited by 26 Apr 2013, 19:17

                                        Haha!

                                        The birds know what they want! 😆

                                        If GMO offer no health benefits, then why do they even exist?

                                        Money. Greed.

                                        Having to test toxicity in the first place says to me they don't do you any good. If you don't use the toxins...there will be no toxicity!! So what if the toxicity coefficient is low....IT'S STILL A TOXIN!

                                        Am I missing something? So what if GMO are more resilient to some diseases, with organic you lose some plants and you lose some money, big deal. It's how farming's been done for 1000s of years! Take it on the chin and move on. 😆

                                        oli

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M Offline
                                          Mike Lucey
                                          last edited by 27 Apr 2013, 12:15

                                          Yes indeed, it look like the birds know whats good for them. Thanks Majid.

                                          From what I can see, one of the main reasons the likes of Monsanto and other similar companies thrive, is simply because of the monoculture we have today. For as long as we enbrance this method of growing food there will be a requirement for pesticides and unnatural growth enhancers with their risks and ???????

                                          Biodiversity is the best way to deliver food and at the same time maintain sustainability. Taking this down to a simple back graden level, here as some tips on how things should be done,
                                          10 Fast Ways to Control Pests
                                          http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/10-fast-ways-control-pests

                                          Now, if Monsanto could work on figuring out some way of scaling this method up in a 'natural' way I would not have a problem with them but I very much doubt they would even consider trying to do this as it goes against their real motives, profit at any arguable cost not sustainable growing. Fair enough! but I wish they would not try to hold a halo over their heads.

                                          As regards the 'halo'! I read this on their site,
                                          WHY DOES AGRICULTURE NEED TO BE IMPROVED
                                          GROWING POPULATIONS,
                                          GROWING CHALLENGES
                                          http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/growing-populations-growing-challenges.aspx

                                          Its clap trap as far as I'm concerned. They should be honest and tag on 'GROWING PROFITS AT ANY COST' and not bother with the drivel. Monsanto looks to me be be looking forward to a 9Billion population in 2050 instead of getting involved in ways to see if its possible to have a sustainable World population!

                                          The World is only capable of carrying a certain population of animals which include us humans. We are not really sure about this number but many informed neutral sources think we have already exceded this figure. This is the core problem!

                                          Huge population increases over the past 120 years have and are throwing food production and other living support systems out of tilter with what Nature can deliver at a sustainable level. I think Mother Nature will in time strike back as she always has when certain species, for what ever reason, overtax and grab an unfair share of her resources.

                                          Support us so we can support you! Upgrade to Premium Membership!

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • 1
                                          • 2
                                          • 3
                                          • 4
                                          • 5
                                          • 6
                                          • 7
                                          • 8
                                          • 12
                                          • 13
                                          • 6 / 13
                                          6 / 13
                                          • First post
                                            115/249
                                            Last post
                                          Buy SketchPlus
                                          Buy SUbD
                                          Buy WrapR
                                          Buy eBook
                                          Buy Modelur
                                          Buy Vertex Tools
                                          Buy SketchCuisine
                                          Buy FormFonts

                                          Advertisement