4 ms·
I agree with your sentiment, I do see some nuance here though. This phenotype is very valuable in how it could reduce inputs across industrial agriculture--and
by taylorfinley 7y ago
I agree with your sentiment, I do see some nuance here though. This phenotype is very valuable in how it could reduce inputs across industrial agriculture--and industrial agriculture is an extremely competitive and well-developed market. Entrenched interests are change-averse (unless they themselves are exploiting the change), so the very powerful industry will either squash this plant if it threatens their dominance, or squeeze every last penny out of it through patents. The net benefit will be best for everyone involved if the Nitrogen-fixing phenotype is hybridized into every corn cultivar around, which is only likely to happen if big-ag can exploit it for profit. That being the case, can we find a way to reward the farmers who genetically engineered this plant by selecting for the strongest individuals for the last several thousands years? Perhaps we can compensate them proportionately to the western seed companies who will close the last-mile gap getting this valuable trait to market.
- 13of40 7y ago> can we find a way to reward the farmers who genetically engineered this plant by selecting for the strongest individuals for the last several thousands years? In a very concrete sense we cannot, because the people who did it are dead. We're really talking about rewarding (the people we presume to be) their descendants. Is that something we would do in a completely European context? For example, if we found a strain of worm-resistant apple that had been growing in a particular suburb of Manchester since before anyone's grandma could remember, would you consider giving patent rights to anyone who had a tree in their back yard?
- harimau777 7y agoIsn't that basically what inheritance is? Rewarding descendants for what their ancestors did?
- cglace 7y agoI think you are missing most of their point.