Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

I don't buy into the Bill Gates thing.  He gives away a lot of money in an objective sense, but in a relative sense, it's nowhere near what he should be considering just how wealthy he is.  His net worth continues to increase.  The guy's giving away money, but he's getting richer at the same time.  That doesn't indicate to me a person who really cares about inequality.  He's now surpassed Warren Buffet, who used to be ahead of him, by almost $15 billion, and that is a man who has publicly admitted to paying less taxes than his secretary by exploiting loopholes.  Plus, there are a some major problems with the way the Gates Foundation operates.

When the biggest problem in the world is inequality, you don't get to say that you're helping with the problem if you take more with one hand than you're giving with the other, or if you maintain a personal wealth that outweighs hundreds of millions of other people combined for decades.  The existence of billionaires is the problem.  Such titanic mountains of wealth doesn't improve their quality of life.  When you hit the point where you could have literally anything you wanted in the world forever multiple times over, the only thing you accomplish by having more is ensuring that others have less.  It's been estimated that it would cost about $175 billion per year to end extreme poverty for the entire world.  The combined net worth of the billionaire class amounts to about $5.4 trillion between only 1,426 people.  A small fraction of them could handle it, if they really wanted to.  Especially if just a few people from that top 50 chipped in.

And don't get me wrong... I don't exactly have a problem with Bill Gates in the same way that I have a problem with the Koch Brothers, the Wal-Mart family, etc.  But he doesn't get a pass from me either.

[GlyphGryph]

http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2013/08/activists-destroy-golden-rice-field-trial

Holy fuck this pisses me off to know end. Remember, regressives aren't only traditional conservatives...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Huh, I had been under the impression that golden rice was already in widespread use.

But yes, the anti-GMO freaks are employing the same kind of annoying "purity logic" that drives so many other stupid ideas.

[GlyphGryph]

It's not in widespread use because they are trying to make sure they move forward responsibly and safely - you know, the things anti-GMO activists accuse GMO folks of never doing - and this is the thanks they get for it. There's just no winning.

[LordSlowpoke]

the term you're looking for is not "conservative"

at this point you're looking for "reactionary"

also purity logic is a good logic when you know what logic is

[GlyphGryph]

This is the very essence of conservative thought - new is bad, change is bad, we need to go back to the way things were, things were better in the past and the future is scary.

Mind you, in places like the US and Europe conservative/progressive issues don't necessarily align with the parties that it would make sense for them to be aligned with, but that's a side effect of coalition politics more than anything else.

[XXSockXX]

Well, to be fair, there are some issues with GMOs. First there is the question of longterm effects on the environment and humans. Then there is the patent issue. Wasn't it in Canada where some farmers were sued by a big company because modified corn had cross-pollinated their crops? That's a serious concern for countries where the majority of agricultural production comes from small farms.

Europe (or at least Germany) is pretty conservative when GMOs are concerned. AFAIK Monsanto has pretty much given up here because they rarely get anything licensed.

[Dutchling]

Europe (or at least Germany) is pretty conservative when GMOs are concerned. AFAIK Monsanto has pretty much given up here because they rarely get anything licensed.

I sure do hope it stays that way...

[GlyphGryph]

Well, to be fair, there are some issues with GMOs.
First there is the question of longterm effects on the environment and humans.

This was a trial to attempt to uncover that, that was destroyed.

Then there is the patent issue.

This trial was being run by an organization that is the equivalent of the Open Source Software movement for genetics. The rice was to be freely available.

This is everything anti-GMO folks have claimed to have wanted - careful, responsible progress free from entangling patents and ludicrous fees and attempts to control by multinational corporations. It's very easy to believe at this point that what they claim to want isn't actually anything like what they really want...

[SalmonGod]

It does frustrate the hell out of me how much reactionism is among anti-GMO environmentalists.  Got in a big argument with a bunch of them once when they decided to start protesting a kickstarter by a guy who wanted to make glowing plants to reduce dependence on electric light.  You couldn't reason with them.  It was just this constant orgasmic echoing of "IT'S NOT NATURAL!!!!"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The patent issue is more of a copyright thing than a GMO thing.

[XXSockXX]

Ok, so patents weren't a problem. Still this was only an efficacy trial that was going on for a few months, so the issue of possible longterm effects remains. Sometimes just tiny changes can destabilize whole eco-systems.

[Luke_Prowler]

Well, to be fair, there are some issues with GMOs. First there is the question of longterm effects on the environment and humans. Then there is the patent issue. Wasn't it in Canada where some farmers were sued by a big company because modified corn had cross-pollinated their crops? That's a serious concern for countries where the majority of agricultural production comes from small farms.

Europe (or at least Germany) is pretty conservative when GMOs are concerned. AFAIK Monsanto has pretty much given up here because they rarely get anything licensed.

Well, that first bit can also be applied to literally. Everything. An non-native species, regardless of it being modified, can have serious long term effects on a ecosystem. Yet that same level of vitriol and scrutiny for GMOs does not apply to, say, livestock. Or even non-GMO non-native plants

[Owlbread]

I have no moral problems with GMOs. I advocate genetically modifying humans, along with plants (particularly narcotics). It just has to be very carefully controlled.

[Graknorke]

Ok, so patents weren't a problem. Still this was only an efficacy trial that was going on for a few months, so the issue of possible longterm effects remains. Sometimes just tiny changes can destabilize whole eco-systems.

You mean like the huge amount of nitrates put into the soil at farms? And how farming in general messes up ecosystems? Genetically modifying things is not going to have anywhere near the impact as the fact that they are being farmed.