6 ms·

> So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. The same Monsanto that manufactured PCBs and Agent Orange? That's a

by np76 8y ago

> So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. The same Monsanto that manufactured PCBs and Agent Orange? That's a crazy coincidence.

dionidium 8y ago
Well, no, not the same Monsanto that did any of that. They spun off their chemical division in 1996. [0] More philosophically (and despite what SCOTUS has to say about it), companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency. And the people who did the things you mention here are dead. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-to-sell-or-spin-off-chemical-unit.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-t...
- atlantic 8y ago
  That's sophistry. You can take that line of argument to absolve anyone or anything from responsibility. For example, none of the cells in my body are the same as ten years ago, ergo this is not the same body as a decade ago. Or, there is no continuity between my thoughts then and now, therefore mentally I am not the same entity. Or, all of the individuals composing a company when it committed an environmental crime are now retired, therefore it is no longer the same company. Seriously? What about the continuity of corporate culture and management processes?
  - dionidium 8y ago
    In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - atlantic 8y ago
      If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then no company could be held responsible for its actions if more than a generation had passed, because all the constituent employees would then have left. But by the same logic, if companies are just convenient fictions, then they should have no rights whatsoever beyond those of their constituent employees - no fiscal benefits, no corporate donations, no political lobbying, no corporate legal representation, etc. Is that also your position?
      - dionidium 8y ago
        No. You’re making a legal argument. Maybe that’s useful. Maybe not. But if your goal is to better understand the world, then it’s a dead-end. (In other words, litigating the history of Agent Orange does not clarify or contextualie this discussion about glyphosate; it adds only unnecessary and unhelpful moral confusion. It obfuscates and misleads. It is political axe-grinding of the worst kind.)
    - SuoDuanDao 8y ago
      Why not? It's the same legal entity committing both crimes.
      - dionidium 8y ago
        Again, you're focusing on the legal entity. Maybe it's useful to hold the entity liable. Maybe not (I suspect not, but it's unrelated to my point). My point is that if you want to meaningfully engage in and understand a debate about glyphosate on the Internet, then a subthread about Agent Orange is guaranteed to confuse, distract, and mislead. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's political axe-grinding. It's mere well-poisoning (and would be even if the same people were involved, but, moreover, the people responsible for Agent Orange are dead).
- cptskippy 8y ago
  Did any of the people in decision making positions today work under the old guard? That might suggest a corporate culture that's been perpetuated.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  The people running Monsanto are buffered - if not always protected entirely - by numerous laws from facing the consequences of their actions, precisely because they take those actions in the context of a corporate entity. If I poison my neighbour and I'm caught, I'm going to jail. (In the US I may face the death penalty.) If I'm working inside a corporate and my decisions poison [unknown power of ten] people and cause [unknown but significant] number of serious and possibly fatal illnesses, I am protected by the profit motive - possibly forever, and in the best case until such time as there's a legal case which the corporate loses, and then loses again, definitively, on appeal. This is not hypothetical. There are many historical examples - not least the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industries, the car industry, and many, many more. It's a curious situation, and not a very satisfactory one. We really should not be allowing the pursuit of profit as an excuse for collectively harmful activities.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Are you sure about that whole "buffer" argument? Can you back it up with sources? I'm not sure that's correct.
    - christophilus 8y ago
      Not the OP, but there's a long history of evidence that powerful corporations get away with a whole lot of things-- including murder. There is a great documentary by the BBC called The Century of the Self[0]. It isn't explicitly about this-- it's much broader-- but it does tangentially serve as sources for this kind of claim. Well worth a watch regardless of your views. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
      - tptacek 8y ago
        It's not that you aren't the original commenter, but that you're not making the same argument. I'm interested in an answer to the question I actually asked.
        8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mhneu 8y ago
  But corporate culture can matter. And culture affects who gets hired and how the employees act, even when new people come in. If you ask biz school profs, culture is essential. To me the bigger problem about treating corps as people is corps are willing to renege on any deal if it benefits them, and pursue profit at all costs. If a person you know acted like that, you’d call them a sociopath. So “Corporations are people: sociopathic people.” Is probably the best description.

by np76 8y ago

> So Monsanto were selling a dangerous pesticide and intentionally obfuscating its effects. The same Monsanto that manufactured PCBs and Agent Orange? That's a crazy coincidence.

dionidium 8y ago

Well, no, not the same Monsanto that did any of that. They spun off their chemical division in 1996. [0] More philosophically (and despite what SCOTUS has to say about it), companies aren't people; they are run by people. "Monsanto" can't do anything. The people running Monsanto have agency. And the people who did the things you mention here are dead. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-to-sell-or-spin-off-chemical-unit.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/business/monsanto-plans-t...

atlantic 8y ago
That's sophistry. You can take that line of argument to absolve anyone or anything from responsibility. For example, none of the cells in my body are the same as ten years ago, ergo this is not the same body as a decade ago. Or, there is no continuity between my thoughts then and now, therefore mentally I am not the same entity. Or, all of the individuals composing a company when it committed an environmental crime are now retired, therefore it is no longer the same company. Seriously? What about the continuity of corporate culture and management processes?
- dionidium 8y ago
  In your frenzy to hold Monsanto culpable for their “corporate culture and management processes” (whatever that means), you’re making arguments that you wouldn’t yourself endorse in any other context. The son is not responsible for the sins of the father, no matter how much of the father’s “culture” he picked up along the way. Agent Orange has nothing to do with GMOs or glyphosate. It just doesn’t. Full stop.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - atlantic 8y ago
    If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then no company could be held responsible for its actions if more than a generation had passed, because all the constituent employees would then have left. But by the same logic, if companies are just convenient fictions, then they should have no rights whatsoever beyond those of their constituent employees - no fiscal benefits, no corporate donations, no political lobbying, no corporate legal representation, etc. Is that also your position?
    - dionidium 8y ago
      No. You’re making a legal argument. Maybe that’s useful. Maybe not. But if your goal is to better understand the world, then it’s a dead-end. (In other words, litigating the history of Agent Orange does not clarify or contextualie this discussion about glyphosate; it adds only unnecessary and unhelpful moral confusion. It obfuscates and misleads. It is political axe-grinding of the worst kind.)
  - SuoDuanDao 8y ago
    Why not? It's the same legal entity committing both crimes.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      Again, you're focusing on the legal entity. Maybe it's useful to hold the entity liable. Maybe not (I suspect not, but it's unrelated to my point). My point is that if you want to meaningfully engage in and understand a debate about glyphosate on the Internet, then a subthread about Agent Orange is guaranteed to confuse, distract, and mislead. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's political axe-grinding. It's mere well-poisoning (and would be even if the same people were involved, but, moreover, the people responsible for Agent Orange are dead).
cptskippy 8y ago
Did any of the people in decision making positions today work under the old guard? That might suggest a corporate culture that's been perpetuated.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
The people running Monsanto are buffered - if not always protected entirely - by numerous laws from facing the consequences of their actions, precisely because they take those actions in the context of a corporate entity. If I poison my neighbour and I'm caught, I'm going to jail. (In the US I may face the death penalty.) If I'm working inside a corporate and my decisions poison [unknown power of ten] people and cause [unknown but significant] number of serious and possibly fatal illnesses, I am protected by the profit motive - possibly forever, and in the best case until such time as there's a legal case which the corporate loses, and then loses again, definitively, on appeal. This is not hypothetical. There are many historical examples - not least the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industries, the car industry, and many, many more. It's a curious situation, and not a very satisfactory one. We really should not be allowing the pursuit of profit as an excuse for collectively harmful activities.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Are you sure about that whole "buffer" argument? Can you back it up with sources? I'm not sure that's correct.
  - christophilus 8y ago
    Not the OP, but there's a long history of evidence that powerful corporations get away with a whole lot of things-- including murder. There is a great documentary by the BBC called The Century of the Self[0]. It isn't explicitly about this-- it's much broader-- but it does tangentially serve as sources for this kind of claim. Well worth a watch regardless of your views. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
    - tptacek 8y ago
      It's not that you aren't the original commenter, but that you're not making the same argument. I'm interested in an answer to the question I actually asked.
      - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mhneu 8y ago
But corporate culture can matter. And culture affects who gets hired and how the employees act, even when new people come in. If you ask biz school profs, culture is essential. To me the bigger problem about treating corps as people is corps are willing to renege on any deal if it benefits them, and pursue profit at all costs. If a person you know acted like that, you’d call them a sociopath. So “Corporations are people: sociopathic people.” Is probably the best description.