Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible for the advent of LED lighting and they have financed the research of a future Nobel laureate.
"Their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the 'green revolution' increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank."
The problem is we now have a food system that is:
- reliant on genetic monocultures
- quickly depleting our non-renewable water supplies
- heavily reliant on oil
- causing massive algal blooms and hypoxic zones
- destroying the thickness of the soil
- depleting the soil of micronutrients
- killing the mycorrhizae
The way we're going there is a very real possibility of 1 billion plus people dying in the next fifty years as part of a massive human dieback because of our current Monsanto-style food production.
Not to mention the fact that even today our food is largely devoid of any taste or real nutritional content, and is causing epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.
I'm sympathetic to this critique, although I think you've overstated it -- the risk of a 1 billion plus die-off is unlikely, and the distribution of tasty and nutritional food is likely better today than ever before. I would add, as well, the myriad of problems relating to rampant antibiotic use in food production. The fact is, however, that engaging with technology has risks and benefits, and disengagement often carries very serious tolls. This is true of a number of aspects of modern life and food is perhaps the most visibly ugly. None of this should preclude specific criticisms of Monsanto and its behavior, but it is nonetheless overly simplistic to portray the company as being singularly evil.
That's some high quality propaganda you are spewing out there.
Tell me, since you obviously know so much about the worlds current problem with food.
Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly?
The answer is there isn't a food abundance problem, there is a food availability problem. People don't grow crops and just give them away to the poor; the fact that monsanto has created genetically engineered foods that do things such as resist pesticides, so that large quantities of pesticides can be dumped onto crops without killing them, thus creating, "more food" because less is lost to pests, doesn't get any more food into the belly of starving people around the world.
In fact, the abundance of things like cheap corn around the world is one of the very reasons continents like africa can't ever seem to get on their feet; why would someone buy local african corn that's more expensive than cheaply grown american corn? Undercutting local economies with cheap food has not "feed the world" and does more damage than good.
Monsanto hasn't done a damn thing to allow, "the human population to grow while malnourishment shrinks", that's total absolute garbage.
I'd recommend you ask for more money from your monsanto employers, and if you don't work for them, maybe do some actual research into the company you are defending instead of spewing bullshit that looks like it's been copy pasted from a monsanto PR brochure.
Patenting genetics is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, and you call this ambiguous? You are a fool.
> Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly?
Care to back that up with evidence?
The Global hunger index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index), indicates that hunger has decreased over the past 20 years. Out of the 30 countries with the most hunger, only 3 have more hunger now than 20 years ago. Every country on that list has had hunger decrease of stay still, with the majority of them seeing less hunger.
That may be true but I also do not believe that the improvements in the last 20 years have had anything to do with food production. As Sen argued way back in 1981 the cause of hunger and famine is political, not due to a lack of ability to grow food. Somalia this year is case and point.
The green revolution (as led by Norman Borlaug not Monsanto) may be able to take credit for some of the advances during the 60s and 70s but any advances due to Monsanto in recent years cannot be made up for by their completely unjust business practices as others have mentioned.
I am also disappointed in hearing that a YC company is going this direction.
> advances due to Monsanto in recent years cannot be made up for by their completely unjust business practices as others have mentioned.
people deal with monsanto voluntarily. nobody is making you buy their seeds. the fact that so many do suggest that their advances in gmos are indeed worth the cost.
Actually, Monsanto also sells most "conventional"(non-GMO) seeds. It's very difficult not to deal with them, as they have a near-monopoly. If you're going to look for evil, look there.
no one is making you buy seeds at all. non-GMO seeds don't come with "no save" agreements. if you are a farmer, just do what farmers have done for thousands of years: get your seeds from this year's harvest.
