4 ms·
About GMO, you don't need to be anti-science to be against them. My problem is that GMO seeds are proprietary, that is you need to buy them from whoever produc
by klez 7y ago
About GMO, you don't need to be anti-science to be against them.
My problem is that GMO seeds are proprietary, that is you need to buy them from whoever produces them. And you don't get to use the seeds produced from the plants themselves because either they're sterile or you're legally prevented to do so. I mean, there's even a concept of "seed piracy", which to me is crazy.
The day we have "free-as-in-freedom" (and, of course, safe) GMOs is the day I won't be against them.
I'm a bit perplexed when people here go crazy because John Deere refuses to let people repair their own tractors but as soon as someone is against GMOs it's anti-science.
- shawnz 7y agoI don't think this is really being "against GMOs" though, what you're really against is IP law surrounding GMOs. It's like saying you're "anti-film" just because you don't support the MPAA. It's attacking the wrong target and giving people a bad taste regarding GMOs even though they have the potential to do great things for society.
- epistasis 7y ago> My problem is that GMO seeds are proprietary, that is you need to buy them from whoever produces them. This is getting a bit off topic, but GMO has absolutely zero to do with this, and is a completely unrelated facet of agribusiness. Plant patents go back long before GMOs were ever a possibility. Hybrids, which don't reproduce true, have also been a huge mainstay of farming since longe before GMOs. It's fine to be concerned with the monetization of plant life, but GMOs are not an aspect related to that. There are plenty of non-profits that are trying to make better products that can be freely distributed and grown by farmers, but such misleading information stymies their efforts.