2 ms·

If I have to choose between "plant one seed, save some of the harvest, and replant the seeds for next year" and saving the lives of a billion(10^9) people from

• run4yourlives 15y ago
  That's a false dichotomy.
  • william42 15y ago
    In theory, it is, but in practice, the Green Revolution hybrid(very carefully cross-bred) seeds required you to get new seeds every year, because the seeds you'd get from your harvest would be cross-pollinated improperly. GMO could possibly bridge this gap, but you don't want GM crops cross-pollinating with everyone else's, if only because if it cross-pollinates with an organic farmer's crops, the latter can lose their organic certification. The solution to this is the terminator gene, that makes it impossible for such a situation to happen. I'm not going to support Monsanto's IP actions here, but they aren't pure evil the way, say, De Beers is.
    • run4yourlives 15y ago
      The reason for the terminator gene is not to support the Green Revolution however. The practice was successfully carried out in North America long before GURT was even conceived. The reason for the gene is to ensure Monsanto's share price continues to rise, by ensuring a recurring stream of income from a product that was never previously purchased beyond initial implementation. Hence, false dichotomy.