In other words private firms now have more economic power than many poor countries. I think people will have to adjust to this reality and figure out how to work in this environment. Calling the big agribusinesses "evil" isn't going to produce meaningful solutions.
If a firm like Monsanto spends a billion dollars developing new plant varieties and then uses the power of patents and monopolies to extract maximum profits from this investment what are the alternatives? One either pays the piper or does without. Weak states can't afford the time or effort to develop their own varieties.
I'd like to hear some concrete suggestions on how to operate in a privatized, monopolistic economic environment. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
There are plenty of adequate varieties. What's needed is support for farmers so they can get back (since a combination of Washington Consensus policies with subsidised dumping by rich-world producers has debilitated farming in many poorer countries) to growing subsistence crops for themselves and their country, and cash crops to get national and regional markets working and bring farmers some money to prime the pump. This is perfectly possible without Monsanto's pesticide GMs that are in fact conceived to offer advantages to intensive rich-country agriculture.
And no, we're not in a privatised, monopolistic economic environment, not yet.
Subsistence farming is inadequate to deal with the rising population and there is also a need to get yields up as land is taking out of agricultural production and used for something else, or ruined by overuse.
There is also a worldwide trend away from the land and into cities. The remaining farmers will have to produce more to feed all those no longer engaging in agriculture. I'm not suggesting any specific course of action, just pointing out that condemning the monopolies isn't a plan, just a reaction.
I have no strong opinions on GM foods, but I suspect that those who oppose them as a matter of principle are not looking into the issue deeply enough.
I do agree that "patenting" life is obscene. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
The distribution issue, while very real, is akin to blaming the price of oil on speculators and environmentalists when considering food production as a whole.
you are the media you consume.
The "trend" to the cities happens because peasant farmers cannot make a living on the land, for reasons I outline above. The trend needs to be reversed by making it possible to live from farming. Why do you accept it as seemingly inevitable, as something that is just "happening"?
You have no strong opinion, you say, but your own ideas appear to be based on an a priori belief that widescale industrial farming must be the only way to feed the world. But widescale industrial farming in poorer or developing countries lends itself to colonial exploitation by large corporations in a free-trade environment, which in turn means plantation-type monocultures that are agronomically fragile and environmentally unsustainable. The counter-project is to support and empower smaller-scale farming carried out by those who (still) have practical knowledge of local conditions. There are immense gains in yields to be made simply by the use of existing well-adapted varieties along with better farming practice in an environment in which farming pays the farmer (not currently the case in the countries we are discussing).
The claim that the activity is the last, best hope to improve the agricultural productivity of the world is very bold, given that it has not even been shown to be a hope in improving agricultural productivity.
It might be conceivable that Monsanto could use this technology to produce GM seeds that can be used in a progressive agricultural system in, say, the eastern DRC ... the former "breadbasket of Central Africa" ... should political stability return to the area.
But the fact is that to date Monsanto has done no such thing. The streams of income come from having seeds that cannot be saved and re-used and from crops that encourage more intensive use of artificial inputs. So whether or not GM could be used as a technology to contribute to a more sustainable agricultural for developing nations, in both the sense of ecological sustainability and in the sense of being self-propagating within developing economies ...
... its not doing that now, and its not clear that there is any reason why a commercial corporation would ever put their attention to the task of doing so.
This is a case of "you know, if Junior ever set his mind to it, he could make a big contribution to the local team with that cricket/baseball bat" ... when in reality what Junior does with the bat is go around the neighborhood beating people upside the head. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
This is a case of "you know, if Junior ever set his mind to it, he could make a big contribution to the local team with that cricket/baseball bat" ... when in reality what Junior does with the bat is go around the neighborhood beating people upside the head, if they don't pay protection money. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
What's needed is to ban all patents on life. It's also a form of regulatory relief.
What's needed is to ban all patents on life.
What we need is to revise all patent law in view of the societal cost/benefit of each patent to society. In Stuart England patents were awarded to royal cronies on such things as the sale of salt. This was done primarily to provide the Crown with revenue and was an example of royal parasitism.
In the USA patents are justified as encouraging innovation, but the whole manner in which patents are handled has become more a bulwark of the privileges of the powerful than a benefit to society. It does provides lots of employment for attorneys. Corporations will just cross-license each other to get around problems. But the system discourages the emergence of new players in existing fields. Small players will often publish their inventions, rather than patent them, so that they can retain the rights to their own inventions as part of the "public domain" rather than having to pay to have the invention patented and then having to pay attorneys to sue infringers--or worse, having them patented by a wealthier rival.
With regard to patented lifeforms, we may be presented with the spectacle of having aspects of our own DNA patented by others. Some company might "patent your ass" and then "sue your ass" for infringing on their patent! Then you could have some patent attorney arguing in court that your existence violates their patent rights. And you probably think I am only joking.
This is an area where a useful alliance might be made with traditional faith based groups. If "life is sacred" how can it be patented for the exclusive economic benefit of a specific human entity? Properly framed, "patenting the staff of life" could be problematic for many of the genuinely religious.
But it is complex. What if prohibiting patents on lifeforms prevented development of recombinant versions of microbes that never would or could be found in nature, but which could process cellulose into propane, ethane, pentane octane or long chain hydrocarbons? As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
The original idea of patents was that by rewarding inventors, society would get worthwhile benefits. The justification was never cash-cows for big corporations.
When society quits benefiting patents should go.
Patents on life forms is already a negative. The Fates are kind.
hypothetical. The harm is real and already occurring.
Ah, well, another "might have been" moment ... unless the next head of the FDA wants to pick the fight on his own. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Once you move past that point, you see that government have the power; they just don't use it. That can be changed. By political action (in the widest meaning of the word). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The reason governments aren't working for the benefit of the people is because they are not sufficiently democratic. This is something I've written about many times. We are in a situation which parallels the first Gilded Age. That ended in a world war and massive depression.
I've already posted a diary about the possibility that we are in the early stages of WWIII: Has WWIII Already Started? so I won't repeat my arguments.
What I haven't seen from anyone who dislikes my negative outlook are discussions of my points.
Just for reference there is an ongoing debate among those specializing in economic development as to what course to take. On one side are the critics like Joseph Stiglitz, William Easterly and Paul Collier and on the other are the optimists like Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs. Not only can't they agree on what steps to take in the future they can't even agree on what worked or failed to work in the past and why. Unlike us they are all professional economists who specialize in this area. I think this proves that the problems are daunting and not getting the kind of innovative ideas needed. If you are interested in this area they all have books out and Dani Rodrik has a blog as well. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
First crack in the wall Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
This is, indeed, a point that was made much more clearly by Institutionalists working in the field of Development Economics in the 1950's and 1960's. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
There is an alternative, as I sketched out above, and it involves empowering peasant farmers so they can make a living (provide food staples, earn money) from the land while not destroying it. Half the world's active population are farmers, most of them small peasants. These people have skills and locally-adapted knowledge that can be harnessed to provide much more food than is currently the case in many poorer countries. This would keep population in the country areas and help halt the flight to the towns. (Another of your points I responded to).
Of course, if you step back and say, we haven't got democratic governments so we're screwed anyway... You know, OK, so let's all go hang ourselves.
For example you say "involves empowering peasant farmers " and all I say is how?
What's the plan? We know what the goals are. Where are the implementation plans? Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
I overheard a conversation about oil prices on the train the other day that sums up the current American zeitgeist, I think. I might write about it.
On second thought, I'm current reading The Road by Cormack McCarthy, so maybe I'll refrain from comment for a while.
that governments are powerless agaisnt corporations.
In other words, all of the powers of corporations come from charters granted by governments. What has been granted can be changed.
In the USA there is a common saying about company officers: Vice Presidents are empowered to sign contracts and to go to jail on behalf of the company.
Making corporate officers personally liable for acts of "gross negligence", including many things now considered "externalities" and sending them to jail could have a most salutary effect on corporate behavior, as would awarding whistle-blowers a portion of corporate fines and a civil claim against the personal wealth of responsible officers. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
One either pays the piper or does without.
Subordinating human health and welfare to profits is evil.
If not, there is no evil. It's all just a matter of-well,--learning to operate in a privatized, monopolistic environment.
It's also stupid- a disastrous social mistake, because the externalized cost of the people repair/treatment/incarceration/reeducation/replacement are socially ruinous. But it's profitable. For Monsanto. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
"This collaborative initiative is part of AGRA's strategic vision to build partnerships that pool the strengths and resources of the public and private sectors, civil society, farmers organizations, donors, scientists and entrepreneurs across the agricultural value chain," said Mr. Kofi A. Annan, Chairman of the Board of AGRA. "We must implement immediate solutions for today's crisis and do so in the context of a long-term concerted effort to transform smallholder agriculture, to increase productivity and sustainability, and to end poverty and hunger.
I'll I'm saying is that if someone like Annan can yield to big business and if governments have failed to take the initiative then all that is left is big business. Since they have invested the money they can be expected to set the agenda. If people don't like the agenda then it us up to them to not only set a new agenda, but to explain how it will be implemented given present realities.
Are you going to get patent laws changed? Are you going to set up rival R&D labs funded by governments? Are you going to change the subsidy policies of governments for big producers? Are you going to change international trade agreements? Are you going to persuade youngster that staying in rural areas is better than the buzz and potential of big cities? How? Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
My point is that it is counterproductive to absorb the talking points that corporations have used to forward their agenda, and use them as a departure point for our planning, because once you do that, you have ceeded the framework to them. If they set the terms of discourse, however false (and they are false), the outcome is largely determined. And the outcome is, as we can now see, --evil. There is such a thing, you know.
"We need their research to progress"--false.
"They deserve huge returns for their huge necessary investment in research"---false (investment), and false (just returns).
We don't need to solve these problems, because they are corporate fabrications. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
