4 ms·
So you'd prefer that farmers get screwed by the onerous IP clauses surrounding them?
by DoctorNick 5y ago
So you'd prefer that farmers get screwed by the onerous IP clauses surrounding them?
- pm90 5y agoNo, just remove the onerous clauses rather than GMO crops.
- bluGill 5y agoThe most interesting patents have already expired. Most of the clauses you think of as onerous are non issues to real farmers. Hybrid seeds don't breed true, so no farmer is saving their seed in the first place.
- tofof 5y agoThis is a false dichotomy, and really just a red herring. GP claimed "GMOs ... will kill the best farming land we have" The parent you replied to refuted that point. Onerous IP clauses surrounding crop seeds is an IP issue, not one of agriculture and topsoil quality. And quite frankly, if onerous IP was the cost we HAD to pay, compared to the depletion of a resourse that is "non-renewable in human timescales," [1][2] yes, that's easily worth it. 1: Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN, http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/278954/ http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-detai... "Soil is a finite resource, meaning its loss and degradation is not recoverable within a human lifespan." 2: US Forest Service, way back in 2003 https://web.archive.org/web/20170531160340/https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fia/local-resources/pdf/field_manuals/2003_manual_supplement_cover_p3.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170531160340/https://www.fs.fe... Section 11.2 "On human time scales, fertile topsoil is not a renewable resource."