5 ms·

Congratulations to Cloudant for signing a big deal. Why work with a company as...ethically ambiguous as Monsanto? I would love to hear how your team decided to

Congratulations to Cloudant for signing a big deal. Why work with a company as...ethically ambiguous as Monsanto? I would love to hear how your team decided to accept this deal, and I hope more than dollar signs crossed your minds. Personally, I would start a startup (if I ever have the guts) for freedom. How could dealing with Monsanto differ from wearing golden handcuffs?

famousactress 15y ago
There's nothing ethically ambiguous about Monsanto. You'd be hard-pressed to name an organization of any ilk that's actively perpetrating more devastating evil.
- aMoniker 15y ago
  Halliburton. What do I win?
  - protomyth 15y ago
    In ND, Halliburton is pretty well liked.
- heydenberk 15y ago
  Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible for the advent of LED lighting and they have financed the research of a future Nobel laureate.
  - famousactress 15y ago
    I could give a fuck how much less electricity my lightbulbs use if it's weighed against actively making it impossible for people to make food. Also, there's a very good reason you put "green revolution" in quotes, and "agricultural productivity" deserved them in that context also.
    - rdouble 15y ago
      The Green Revolution is a specific phrase that means increased agricultural productivity. It should have been capitalized, not quoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "Their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the 'green revolution' increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank." The problem is we now have a food system that is: - reliant on genetic monocultures - quickly depleting our non-renewable water supplies - heavily reliant on oil - causing massive algal blooms and hypoxic zones - destroying the thickness of the soil - depleting the soil of micronutrients - killing the mycorrhizae The way we're going there is a very real possibility of 1 billion plus people dying in the next fifty years as part of a massive human dieback because of our current Monsanto-style food production. Not to mention the fact that even today our food is largely devoid of any taste or real nutritional content, and is causing epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.
    - heydenberk 15y ago
      I'm sympathetic to this critique, although I think you've overstated it -- the risk of a 1 billion plus die-off is unlikely, and the distribution of tasty and nutritional food is likely better today than ever before. I would add, as well, the myriad of problems relating to rampant antibiotic use in food production. The fact is, however, that engaging with technology has risks and benefits, and disengagement often carries very serious tolls. This is true of a number of aspects of modern life and food is perhaps the most visibly ugly. None of this should preclude specific criticisms of Monsanto and its behavior, but it is nonetheless overly simplistic to portray the company as being singularly evil.
      - thepointyhat 15y ago
        Genetic monocultures have killed a lot of people in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) Now extrapolate that across the planet.
  - hysterix 15y ago
    That's some high quality propaganda you are spewing out there. Tell me, since you obviously know so much about the worlds current problem with food. Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly? The answer is there isn't a food abundance problem, there is a food availability problem. People don't grow crops and just give them away to the poor; the fact that monsanto has created genetically engineered foods that do things such as resist pesticides, so that large quantities of pesticides can be dumped onto crops without killing them, thus creating, "more food" because less is lost to pests, doesn't get any more food into the belly of starving people around the world. In fact, the abundance of things like cheap corn around the world is one of the very reasons continents like africa can't ever seem to get on their feet; why would someone buy local african corn that's more expensive than cheaply grown american corn? Undercutting local economies with cheap food has not "feed the world" and does more damage than good. Monsanto hasn't done a damn thing to allow, "the human population to grow while malnourishment shrinks", that's total absolute garbage. I'd recommend you ask for more money from your monsanto employers, and if you don't work for them, maybe do some actual research into the company you are defending instead of spewing bullshit that looks like it's been copy pasted from a monsanto PR brochure. Patenting genetics is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, and you call this ambiguous? You are a fool.
    - andylei 15y ago
      > Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly? Care to back that up with evidence? The Global hunger index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index), indicates that hunger has decreased over the past 20 years. Out of the 30 countries with the most hunger, only 3 have more hunger now than 20 years ago. Every country on that list has had hunger decrease of stay still, with the majority of them seeing less hunger.
      - bbest86 15y ago
        That may be true but I also do not believe that the improvements in the last 20 years have had anything to do with food production. As Sen argued way back in 1981 the cause of hunger and famine is political, not due to a lack of ability to grow food. Somalia this year is case and point. The green revolution (as led by Norman Borlaug not Monsanto) may be able to take credit for some of the advances during the 60s and 70s but any advances due to Monsanto in recent years cannot be made up for by their completely unjust business practices as others have mentioned. I am also disappointed in hearing that a YC company is going this direction.
SODaniel 15y ago
Calling Monsanto 'ethically ambiguous' is akin to describing Hitler as a 'colorful leader with sporadic public relations issues'.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- itaborai83 15y ago
  Godwin's law - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
temphn 15y ago
Monsanto has received terribly negative press, this is true. Part of that negative press is due to public dislike of GMO foods in Europe. Part of that is due to their DRM-like technology that stops farmers from replanting seeds after one generation. If you invented a new kind of seed which was significantly more productive but cost billions in R&D to develop, what business model would you use instead? Put in other words, is the objection to agricultural biotechnology in general (like the Green Revolution) or to Monsanto's specific implementation, and if so what are the top flaws in their approach in your view?
- carbocation 15y ago
  No, those aren't really the major problems that people have with Monsanto. We should start by discussing their lawsuits against farmers because Monsanto grain blew onto their fields and move up from there.
  - dionidium 15y ago
    The most famous such case (and probably the one you're thinking of) is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser in which the farmer who was sued almost certainly saved and re-used seed, then lied about the accidental nature of the crop's presence on his farm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    To be fair: farmers weren't simply getting sued for having Roundup-ready crops; they were finding their fields populated with Roundup-ready plants, and then using Roundup on the field. There was an element of getting-something-for-nothing on the farmer's side, too.
    - carbocation 15y ago
      I agree with your and dionidium's characterizations. My intent wasn't to paint a one-sided anti-Monsanto picture (although I think I ended up doing that, and alas can't edit my original post at this point), but rather to offer an alternative to temphn's characterization of the public's issues with Monsanto.

famousactress 15y ago

There's nothing ethically ambiguous about Monsanto. You'd be hard-pressed to name an organization of any ilk that's actively perpetrating more devastating evil.

aMoniker 15y ago
Halliburton. What do I win?
- protomyth 15y ago
  In ND, Halliburton is pretty well liked.
heydenberk 15y ago
Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible for the advent of LED lighting and they have financed the research of a future Nobel laureate.
- famousactress 15y ago
  I could give a fuck how much less electricity my lightbulbs use if it's weighed against actively making it impossible for people to make food. Also, there's a very good reason you put "green revolution" in quotes, and "agricultural productivity" deserved them in that context also.
  - rdouble 15y ago
    The Green Revolution is a specific phrase that means increased agricultural productivity. It should have been capitalized, not quoted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
- Alex3917 15y ago
  "Their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the 'green revolution' increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank." The problem is we now have a food system that is: - reliant on genetic monocultures - quickly depleting our non-renewable water supplies - heavily reliant on oil - causing massive algal blooms and hypoxic zones - destroying the thickness of the soil - depleting the soil of micronutrients - killing the mycorrhizae The way we're going there is a very real possibility of 1 billion plus people dying in the next fifty years as part of a massive human dieback because of our current Monsanto-style food production. Not to mention the fact that even today our food is largely devoid of any taste or real nutritional content, and is causing epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes, cancer, etc.
  - heydenberk 15y ago
    I'm sympathetic to this critique, although I think you've overstated it -- the risk of a 1 billion plus die-off is unlikely, and the distribution of tasty and nutritional food is likely better today than ever before. I would add, as well, the myriad of problems relating to rampant antibiotic use in food production. The fact is, however, that engaging with technology has risks and benefits, and disengagement often carries very serious tolls. This is true of a number of aspects of modern life and food is perhaps the most visibly ugly. None of this should preclude specific criticisms of Monsanto and its behavior, but it is nonetheless overly simplistic to portray the company as being singularly evil.
    - thepointyhat 15y ago
      Genetic monocultures have killed a lot of people in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) Now extrapolate that across the planet.
- hysterix 15y ago
  That's some high quality propaganda you are spewing out there. Tell me, since you obviously know so much about the worlds current problem with food. Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly? The answer is there isn't a food abundance problem, there is a food availability problem. People don't grow crops and just give them away to the poor; the fact that monsanto has created genetically engineered foods that do things such as resist pesticides, so that large quantities of pesticides can be dumped onto crops without killing them, thus creating, "more food" because less is lost to pests, doesn't get any more food into the belly of starving people around the world. In fact, the abundance of things like cheap corn around the world is one of the very reasons continents like africa can't ever seem to get on their feet; why would someone buy local african corn that's more expensive than cheaply grown american corn? Undercutting local economies with cheap food has not "feed the world" and does more damage than good. Monsanto hasn't done a damn thing to allow, "the human population to grow while malnourishment shrinks", that's total absolute garbage. I'd recommend you ask for more money from your monsanto employers, and if you don't work for them, maybe do some actual research into the company you are defending instead of spewing bullshit that looks like it's been copy pasted from a monsanto PR brochure. Patenting genetics is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of, and you call this ambiguous? You are a fool.
  - andylei 15y ago
    > Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly? Care to back that up with evidence? The Global hunger index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index), indicates that hunger has decreased over the past 20 years. Out of the 30 countries with the most hunger, only 3 have more hunger now than 20 years ago. Every country on that list has had hunger decrease of stay still, with the majority of them seeing less hunger.
    - bbest86 15y ago
      That may be true but I also do not believe that the improvements in the last 20 years have had anything to do with food production. As Sen argued way back in 1981 the cause of hunger and famine is political, not due to a lack of ability to grow food. Somalia this year is case and point. The green revolution (as led by Norman Borlaug not Monsanto) may be able to take credit for some of the advances during the 60s and 70s but any advances due to Monsanto in recent years cannot be made up for by their completely unjust business practices as others have mentioned. I am also disappointed in hearing that a YC company is going this direction.

SODaniel 15y ago

Calling Monsanto 'ethically ambiguous' is akin to describing Hitler as a 'colorful leader with sporadic public relations issues'.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
itaborai83 15y ago
Godwin's law - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

temphn 15y ago

Monsanto has received terribly negative press, this is true. Part of that negative press is due to public dislike of GMO foods in Europe. Part of that is due to their DRM-like technology that stops farmers from replanting seeds after one generation. If you invented a new kind of seed which was significantly more productive but cost billions in R&D to develop, what business model would you use instead? Put in other words, is the objection to agricultural biotechnology in general (like the Green Revolution) or to Monsanto's specific implementation, and if so what are the top flaws in their approach in your view?

carbocation 15y ago
No, those aren't really the major problems that people have with Monsanto. We should start by discussing their lawsuits against farmers because Monsanto grain blew onto their fields and move up from there.
- dionidium 15y ago
  The most famous such case (and probably the one you're thinking of) is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser in which the farmer who was sued almost certainly saved and re-used seed, then lied about the accidental nature of the crop's presence on his farm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
- tptacek 15y ago
  To be fair: farmers weren't simply getting sued for having Roundup-ready crops; they were finding their fields populated with Roundup-ready plants, and then using Roundup on the field. There was an element of getting-something-for-nothing on the farmer's side, too.
  - carbocation 15y ago
    I agree with your and dionidium's characterizations. My intent wasn't to paint a one-sided anti-Monsanto picture (although I think I ended up doing that, and alas can't edit my original post at this point), but rather to offer an alternative to temphn's characterization of the public's issues with Monsanto.