Is there anything wrong with them that isn't specifically about Monstanto? Should they be supported?
>>8072513
>Is there anything wrong with them that isn't specifically about Monstanto?
not really
>Should they be supported?
Benefits outweigh the (mostly hypothesised or imaginary) downsides, so yeah.
>>8072513
They're just another useful technology. The whole concept of "intellectual property" is bullshit, though.
>>8072513
>that isn't specifically about Monstanto
you just answered your own question.
GMO have been shoved to market using backdoor tactics and lobbyist shills granting monsanto far too much control over them, none of it has undergone proper research, is the declining number off bees related to GMOs? i dont know, no one knows, not even monsanto, but it is entirely plausible.
i would have no problem with GMOs if the financial/governmental system around them wasnt so hypocritical.
>substantially equivalent
>>8072533
>people shouldn't be able to own their inventions
>>8072534
The declining number of bees also correlates with a decline in pirates.
I don't see too many pirate galleons anymore and I don't see too many bees anymore.
>>8072537
yes
>>8072537
>their inventions
protip: the litigation is not about "inventions"
We don't know, because MONSANTO and others keep getting bills passed to block testing.
though seriously, putting fish genes in corn can not be a good thing.
>>8072537
If the "value" of your product is based on you preventing other people from using it, then your product isn't actually that valuable.
>>8072513
Drives small farmers out of business and enables crony capitalism
>>8072513
Realistically they just chose the least attractive name for it. Genetically modified organism doesn't sound "good" anyone that does a bit of research will realize there's nothing wrong with it
>>8072534
>none of it has undergone proper research, is the declining number off bees related to GMOs? i dont know, no one knows, not even monsanto
It has undergone proper research. There are literally thousands of studies on GMO crops and their effects on human health and environmental impacts. The verdict? Completely harmless to humans, no more harmful to the environment than other crops using the same pesticide compounds that GMOs express.
>>8072573
It's not about farmers crops being contaminated by seed drift either. Crop contamination is one thing, having a crop that is 90%+ GMO is another. Farmers are just covering their asses.
I bet you think that Monsanto is selling seeds that go sterile after one generation, yes?
>>8072649
>Drives small farmers out of business
At the risk of sounding like a Monsanto shill by posting this many times in a row, I've got to ask, why do you think that small farming is something that's even remotely sustainable? We had a whole crisis back during the market revolution when traditional textile manufacturers realized that mechanization was going to destroy their business. But now, everyone agrees that it was inevitable and ultimately better for society. Why does small-scale farming get a pass?
>>8072600
LOL, if the product isn't that valuable, why do people want to use it?
>>8072513
There wasn't such a thing as fields full of corn before Monsanto came around.
I'm sure the Incans, Mayans, and Aztecs would of loved to have the ability to shoot gold particles into a cell and jam a virus into it's genetic code.
Worst of all after the agricultural revolution humans became much healthier.
yes, what answer did you even expect are you an idiot?
GMOs have been linked to CANCER and AUTISM among MANY other things.
how anyone even could consume them knowing they have been modified (read: VIOLATED) by "genetics" is BEYOND me.
like how STUPID can someone be to honestly take a tomato that some "professor" just injected with NEON BLUE LIQUID and fucking EAT it with a smile on their face like a mindless SHEEP?
okay, just willingly injesting POISONS so that you get sick and big pharma comes to the rescue to "cure" you of the ILLNESS THEY GAVE YOU??
like what the hell is wrong with society that people are so stupid to trust in the government and shill "scientists" who are paid by big pharma to conduct tests in their favor
not only do they save money by creating these HOMUNCULUS GMO FOODS since they are nutriatively poor but then they also make you sick and unhealthy so that you spend more money on medicine to get better
my god idiots are everywhere and their name is humanity i just thank god that i am not such a fucking simple brained moran as to just sit there and eat foods and take medicine designed by corporate fat cats to make me sick and them rich
what is wrong with the world today i wish i had been born 100 years sooner before all of this corporate globalism began
Modern ag science provided developed countries a way to avoid famine forever, but this had the added effect of making the same retards who think vaccines cause autism become triggered over food.
>>8072537
>genetics can be copyrighted
that can be dangerous in the future
>>8072779
Can you name one example?
Hard mode: isn't a nutty conspiracy theory about the NWO owning people.
>>8072779
Might be a good thing. I'd copyright my DNA to make sure no one used it for something I don't approve of
>>8072818
Pharmaceutical companies copyright information that can save lives all the time. This is a good thing, because it helps them propagate that advancement.
>>8072818
>wheres the harm?
Somebody cloning me and using that clone to do bad things
>>8072820
How does limiting who can use the information help propagate it?
>>8072513
This is like asking if there's anything wrong with engineering. The question is just too fucking generic to warrant any kind of answer other than, "It depends on how you use it."
>>8072788
Only that is exactly where it can lead.
>>8072836
Too bad they suck and to a terrible job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
>>8072818
>wheres the harm?
Oh the usual legal Jewing of the human body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_%28novel%29
>>8072835
>and if he 3-D printed you, it would be a vegetable.
All he would need is something that forensic scientist could think was me if found at a crime scene.
>>8072842
>golden rice
lol Damage control!
I've yet to find how many tons per year are being harvested of that stuff. I can only find projections and estimates of "what it could grow from 1 seed". It just seems like a PR stunt crop to look good to the public.
>>8072836
>defame your sources
Hasn't happened once
>ad hominens
See above
>derail
See above
>report you to authorities
Report them for what?
>play dumb or pretend to be anti-monsanto/anti-gmo
Or maybe there are dumb people posting on the internet.
>>8072872
-10 for not keeping up to date.
>>8072872
please drink some glyphosate so the world can get rid of one more idiot, thanks.
>>8072757
>the same retards who think vaccines cause autism become triggered over food
Scarily accurate post.
I overheard a woman working at a charity plant nursery talking about how GMOs are evil, Monsanto is evil, Chemicals are evil, HFCS is evil, etc. etc.. A quick search of her name on google and, sure enough, there she was on the internet boasting that she didn't vaccinate her kids, and saying that vaccines cause autism.
>>8072830
Economic incentives? People aren't willing to shell out the capital needed to mass-manufacture a certain chemical compound unless they can guarantee they'll make a return on it.
>>8072533
You're fucking retarded or living in a cave.
If everyone should have free access to your IP without paying (A FUCKING NOMINAL by the way) royalty then why would any company bother to invest R&D?
Companies that invest in research should be rewarded, not punished, the patent system allows everyone to share the knowledge so we can both advance science and enginerring while also being able to afford employing full time researchers in the hopes that we can pay it off later through our own patents.
>>8073233
Patents are good, yes.
Suing a farmer to bankruptcy because he happens to get a few of your plants growing in his field is pretty not good.
>>8072513
There is no evidence that GMOs are in any way harmful. The 'natural' foods movement that bitches about GMOs is just science denial on the left. These people are effectively the same as the right's "the earth is 6000 years old" and "climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the liberal media" people.
>>8072529
>financial benefits to Monsanto outweigh the downsides to people
FTFY
>>8072575
>though seriously, putting fish genes in corn can not be a good thing.
For what reason, other than "it weird"
>>8072757
>a way to avoid famine in developed countries
wat
>>8072755
>GMOs have been linked to CANCER and AUTISM among MANY other things.
Source? I doubt you have a legitimate one because you're clearly full of shit, but I'll provide a source in the negative (something I really don't need to do anyway).
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/09/10/19-year-study-of-trillions-of-meals-shows-ge-crops-do-not-harm-food-producing-animals-humans/
> There were no indications of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.
and
> No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from GE-fed animals. Because DNA and protein are normal components of the diet that are digested, there are no detectable or reliably quantifiable traces of GE components in milk, meat, and eggs following consumption of GE feed.
>>8073298
>no evidence that GMOs are harmful
no studies, no evidence, win for Monsanto
>>8073314
Do you not know how the scientific method works? If there is no evidence at all that GMOs are harmful, then you can't just say they are. You don't just assume a statement then say that everyone needs to prove you wrong (even though I did prove you wrong).
> no studies
There are countless studies showing no harm coming from GMOs.
> no evidence
No evidence they are harmful, but plenty indicating that GMOs are not harmful.
> win for Monsanto
We aren't talking about Monsanto, we are talking about GMOs.
>>8072537
Inventions only possible because of the work of hundreds of thousands of others who have provided the infrastructure and intellectual foundation?
> Megacorporation owns patent for DNA of food crop
> Megacorporation artificially lowers prices
> Growers of natural foods are unable to compete and collapse.
> Megacorporation now owns the food supply.
different studies say different things: in short the science is inconclusive.
my stance is if you have a chronic disease of unknown etiology best to avoid.
all the dark money pouring into fighting labelling laws makes me think they've something to hide.
tl;dr: the problem is the obscene amt of pesticide they're throwing on crops these days; as for the rest, who knows?
Call me a tinfoil freak but I'm pretty sure that Monsanto funds the anti-GMO crowd after watching a documentary in small-scale GMO companies and uni-funded research farms getting trashed by radical anti-GMO'ers. Of course Monsanto with their absurd amounts of funds can easily protect their stuff...
>>8072513
Them being patent-able. That is harmful for society and must be stopped.
Boycott GMOs
>>8072540
I-...
I'm not sure they're related.
Yes
Drought resistant food
Food with more beta-carotenoids woooo!
>>8073382
Glyphophosphate (sp?) breaks down fairly quickly.
Its the non-GMO food you have to worry about. They have to resort to cruder forms of fertilizer and pesticide to get a decent product
>>8073382
>all the dark money pouring into fighting labeling laws makes me think they've something to hide.
Or they know America is full of people who take medical advice from politicians instead of medical practitioners and all those gluten free, anti-vaccer, fluoride calcifying our pineal gland fearing people will not buy a product with that sticker on it and sales will drop.
Why would they make the food poisonous? They want to make money after all. That's like saying vaccines are bad. Tinfoil idiots think everyone is out to get them, when people actually just want their money.
GMO good. Pesticide bad. Monopoly bad.
Hearsay
>>8073741
not all genetic modification results the same
>>8072513
I'm only concerned that Monsanto might force innocent farmers to burn their crops because a few stray GM seeds started growing on their land.
>>8072705
Small businesses are important everywhere to keep the power more well distributed and to keep competition up and corruption down. Could you imagine if there were say a couple farms running the entire United States? That would get corrupt real quick.
If you ever worked on a small scale farm, it's the comfiest job out there.
>>8073311
stop getting baited so hard
>>8074477
the scary thing is that there are people who literally believe that
>>8072513
I don't mind this thread appearing every few weeks - but there are OTHER gm companies
>>8073382
>different studies say different things: in short the science is inconclusive.
Liar.
It's just monsanto. We need them to feed the world.
>>8072755
>Being this retarded
>>8072755
>shitposting intensifies
>>8072513
They do not have genetic diversity. Should some specific plague appear, we are all fucked.
Also, those are in general high performance seed. They give a great yield in great conditions, but they perform poorly on not great conditions. Older crops were not designed to perfect soil and water conditions, but gave a reasonable performance at the end
>>8074848
>They do not have genetic diversity.
Neither do the crops they replace, idiot. Monoculture farming has nothing to do with GMOs
>Should some specific plague appear, we are all fucked.
If we couldn't genetically modify crops to be resistant to disease on the fly, we would be. This is an argument for GMOs.
>Also, those are in general high performance seed. They give a great yield in great conditions, but they perform poorly on not great conditions. Older crops were not designed to perfect soil and water conditions, but gave a reasonable performance at the end
Absolute horseshit. Where do you get these retarded claims from?
>>8072699
Thats exactly what they do though.
>>8072813
You don't get the rights to that, Monsanto filed first.
>>8074616
>We need them
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?
Y U lick the boots of Satan, Anon?
>>8072537
>People should own the rights to plants
>>8072722
If water is so important to stay alive, why do you pay so little for it?
>>8073233
Research isn't done by private corporations: it's done researchers on the public dollar and then taken for profit by outside entities.
Only way for mankind to feed its burgeoning population desu senpai.
Not that pop growth is nearly as bad as it's made out to be, it's slowing everywhere that isn't a conflict hellhole thanks to increased life expectancy, family planning and female education/integration to the work force. Some estimate we've passed or will soon be passing 'peak child', i.e. the point at which the most children existed in the world at once, and with luck it'll level out at ten billion which is perfectly feasible to support even with current agricultural capacity (provided we can stop wasting so much and allowing people to consume vastly more calories than they need).
>>8072722
Let me follow onto >>8074967.
Water is so cheap because there's lots of it, despite the fact that it's extremely important. Because anyone can produce clean, drinkable water, competition and excess supply will bring the price down very low.
"Intellectual property" relies on just the opposite: ensuring nobody else but you can produce an important good for society, guaranteeing an undersupply and artificially high prices. This kind of behavior makes money by destroying value and holding back progress.
>>8074971
>t. knows nothing
You've got to be kidding me
corporate bootlickers see no problem with "funding bias" in research
>>8074984
And what are your qualifications to say otherwise Mr. Keyboard Warrior?
>>8075014
How about how basically every professor and anyone who works in the biochemistry department at my uni gets their grants from Monsanto?
How can anyone claim that research isnt commonly private-funded
>>8073233
if your invention is that trivial that everybody is able to replicate it immediatelly, it probably wasn't such a big invention in the first place
>GMOs are BAD
>GMOs are now outlawed
>Millions of brown kids in 3rd world countries starve to death
>>8072513
>Monstanto
>>8075271
nobody wants to outlaw GMO
only remove the copyright
>>8075271
> millions
More likely billions
>>8075278
>nobody
You're wrong there, those people exist
>>8075288
well, not in this thread, so your post seems to be a strawman
>>8074982
>This kind of behavior makes money by destroying value and holding back progress.
That's one way to look at it, but it's just as rational to imagine that without the financial benefits guaranteed by patent law, there would be a severely decreased incentive to put forth the MASSIVE amount of R&D capital necessary for these innovations to come to fruition, no? Would you pump millions of dollars into research for some genetic sequence if it instantly became public domain and its value became nothing? Businesses aren't going to innovate at a loss, so the argument can just as easily say that your system would hold back progress in fields like that moreso than the current one, senpai.
>>8072513
Not really, the problem is really just the shitty application of it.
Genetic diversity is important, every biology undergraduate knows that much. The problem is companies don't give a fuck about long term risks and effects.
>>8075295
I assumed you already knew that people like that exist in real life but I felt the need to point it out because its ridiculous regardless of anyone's stance on intellectual property
>>8074967
Because it's in such high supply. How important something is is not the only thing that determines value. But this has nothing to do with what you're responding to. Try thinking before posting.
>>8073768
>Small businesses are important everywhere to keep the power more well distributed and to keep competition up and corruption down.
And yet, at the same time there's industries that basically have to be monopolies - internet, energy, other utilities, etc.
>>8074885
Name one occurrence.
>>8074885
>Thats exactly what they do though.
Except it's not. Monsanto has literally never sold a seed that's engineered to go sterile after one generation. It was something they briefly considered doing at one point, but the idea was thrown out.
>>8074982
The comparison your argument is based on ignores the fact that no one needed to invent water for it to exist. It's one thing to gather a resource that's already out there and sell it at a profit. It's entirely another to spend large amounts of money developing a product, and then immediately have the product copied and sold by your competitors without them having to factor in any development costs at all. In such a system the inventor always loses and the companies with the ability to sell the most, not invent the best products, wins. So why invent at all? It's completely backwards to say that this stifles progress. Progress is not made by copying a product.
>>8075064
>Proves P = NP
Retarded anonymous fag: "Ha this is trivial because I can just copy the proof"
>>8075403
Are there any private companies working on proving P = NP?
>>8075409
No, so it must be trivial.
>>8075412
i dont see how it matters then
when somebody finds a solution for the NP/P problem, it is gonna be public domain either way
>>8075064
So digital patents shouldn't exist?
Can't patent software, algorithms, etc
>>8075415
So you are not going to respond to the point? Whether something is easy to replicate has nothing to do with how important or valuable it is.
>>8075432
Again, you failed to respond to my point. What does replicability have to do with how important the product is? Arguing that GMOs are somehow "trivial" because they can be copied is just idiotic. It's essentially just circular reasoning. You are only saying this because you are against GMOs being copyrighted, not because you think they are not valuable. So in order to come to the conclusion that GMOs should not be copyrighted, you take as a premise that they are not valuable, because nothing valuable needs to be copyrighted.
In reality, some valuable things need to be copyrighted in order for their value to incentive their creation in the first place. The fear of being copied should not impede the creation of products useful enough that people want to copy them.
>>8075444
if its not trivial, other companies will take some time to reverse engineer it, during that time, you can make a lot of profit.
If its trivial, you probably didn't spent that much money in research either way
Weather GMO are trivial or not is completely irrelevant to my argument
>>8075450
>if its not trivial, other companies will take some time to reverse engineer it, during that time, you can make a lot of profit.
This is just more backwards logic. Why does the amount of reverse engineering required determine triviality? The value of a product determines how much effort companies will take in trying to copy it, not the other way around.
>If its trivial, you probably didn't spent that much money in research either way
LOL companies like Monsanto spend billions on R&D.
Your argument is nonsensical, and you know it.
>Weather GMO are trivial or not is completely irrelevant to my argument
It's like you have all the pieces of the puzzle but you didn't even try to put it together. You just argued that any product which can be copied easily is trivial. GMOs can be copied easily. Therefore in order for your argument to be true, GMOs must be trivial.
>>8075459
well, if the research can't be feasibly done by private sector, it needs to be financed by the state, and become public domain.
It would be a way better situation than the current one, where monsanto has a monopoly on GMO
>>8073311
>taking obvious bait
>>8075403
No, intellectual property would be suing anybody who dares to make a corollary proof based on P=NP for infringing your "property."
>>8075299
You're severely overestimating the scope of radical breakthroughs supposedly developed by the private sector. Further, consider all of the derivative innovations that are prevented from coming into existence because of patents. These businesses aren't just patenting individual products: they patent huge classes of ideas, most of which they plan to never actually produce, just for the sole purpose of hindering any potential competition. They're destroying the possibility of other people going out and producing new innovations by banning research on topics of their choosing altogether.
>>8075366
>>8075397
>your argument is based on ignores the fact that no one needed to invent water for it to exist
Oh but didn't they? A modern municipal water system costs billions of dollars in materials, labor, and planning. Countless man-hours are spent installing pipe and making models of the climate and resevoirs so that your ungrateful little lips can sip cool, clean water.
Now suppose, using my paid connections in the government, I have a decree issued that I am the *only* person in the entire nation allowed to produce potable water. No more neighborhood utilities. No more water stills. Just me.
The good news is that I'm rich! The bad news is that I can price water however I want and I honestly don't give a fuck how much any of you get because I'm wealthy beyond my wildest dreams now. Oh, and if you try to go out to the river to filter your own water I'll sue you for everything you're worth because you're stealing my property.
>>8072755
This has the usual trademarks of the shitposter baiter type. Notice the use of capital letters on key infuriating ideas, the use of long phrases usually separated by points instead of organized paragraph and the constant repeat of refuted, stupid or simply polemic ideas to prove a point obviously biased.
Learn these characteristics to don't fall for the bait.
>>8075475
It can be feasibly done, because it has. Nothing was stopping the government from creating GMOs before Monsanto did it.
>where monsanto has a monopoly on GMO
You have no idea what you're taking about.
>>8075553
You can't copyright a proof though. Intellectual property is not the protection of an idea. This is a common misconception. They protect products. The text of a mathematical textbook is a product. A proof within that textbook is not. You can copy a proof under fair use. you can't copy a textbook with the intent to sell it.
>>8075566
>Oh but didn't they? A modern municipal water system costs billions of dollars in materials, labor, and planning. Countless man-hours are spent installing pipe and making models of the climate and resevoirs so that your ungrateful little lips can sip cool, clean water.
You seem to be having a hard time distinguishing between manufacturing and inventing. A product only needs to be invented once. It needs to be manufactured every single time you wish to sell it. Think before you post.
Considering how humans have a track record of fucking up, it's beyond me that anyone thinks this is a good idea.
It's unnecessary, it pollutes the environment and it may have catastrophic long term effects.
>>8072836
I love it when this is posted. It totally wrecks all pro-GMO shills and they get mad as fuck by the completely infallible logic.
>>8077602
That's not how patents work. You can still research you just can't "making, using, or selling an invention". Then again you can just go to Asia and do whatever the fuck you want.
>>8077641
The same argument could be applied to everything.
>>8078217
Your post makes me angry and compels me to retort.
>>8072755
>>8077602
How does that respond to anything I said? You can't patent water.
