4 ms·

This is true in the abstract but I don’t see how it applies to this specific case. There are two agents here and the GMO plants will only be planted if planting

This is true in the abstract but I don’t see how it applies to this specific case. There are two agents here and the GMO plants will only be planted if planting them is the optimal choice for both.

swiftcoder 1y ago
I don't think you can arbitrarily leave out all the other parties in the agricultural system: the bank, who the farmer may need to borrow from to buy seed, the politicians, who may or may not accept money from the companies producing GMO seeds to produce favourable legislation, the public, who may vote with their wallets when purchasing the resulting crops, and so on...
abdullahkhalids 1y ago
The agents are numerous, as pointed out by sibling comment. The farmer agents only make decisions based on personal profitability. The overall system after some years can evolve to a state where some of the following are true: - the GMO seed maker acquires a monopoly over certain types of seeds, which enables it to reduce farmer profits to below what they were when they were planting non-GMO seeds. - the country's food supply becomes dependent on foreign countries/corporations, which can cause severe problems at international negotiating tables. - the GMO crop has long term health impacts, say after 20 years of use. When these are discovered, it is no longer possible to go back to non-GMO because the infrastructure required for non-GMO crops is not easily reconstructable (for instance a country might reduce its pesticide production significantly once enough farmers have switched to GMO). Similarly, farmers have living knowledge about how to grow certain crop varieties learned by long experience. non-GMO and GMO varieties require different techniques, and non-GMO techniques may be forgotten, making it infeasible to switch back to non-GMO. Decisions to prevent these outcomes can only occur at the government/regulatory level, and may possibly be "GMO are banned".
georgefrowny 1y ago
If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect". Planting the GMO is the optimal choice if you want to survive in the short term, even if you can see disaster looming in the long term despite sweet supplier promises. Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine. A classic multipolar trap for the farmers because they all made an entirely rational decision at every stage and yet they all ended up worse off in the end. And a trap agrotech will be extremely happy to coax farmers into. For their part, if they don't do it, a less scrupulous company would and so they need to do it or get outcompeted - not only must they grow, they just grow faster than the competition to survive long term. And so they are also a trap of their own where they could end up in a strongly negative situation (angry mobs after their blood, say) despite making what was both an optimal and necessary decision at every step. Which is not to say you can't or even shouldn't use biotech to increase crop yield. It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes.
- refurb 1y ago
  It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes. Yet most of the world relies on such a system and it’s produced the highest advancement of any system. The tale you weaved is clearly an edge case of a monopoly. That’s not the situation we have. And you’re ignoring the fact that farmers will be aware that they are purchasing from a monopoly and that can help weight their decision.
  - geysersam 1y ago
    > Yet most of the world relies on such a system and it’s produced the highest advancement of any system. Nah this is a simplification at best. Countries have regulation and laws, none rely only on free markets. GMO is great but it needs governance
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      Why does GMO need governance, vs. (say) hybrid non-GMO seeds? All these arguments smack of badly functioning rationalizations for basically irrational prejudice against GMOs.
      - georgefrowny 1y ago
        Food security in general does need governance and this does includes vulnerability to price fixing of non-GMO seeds and agricultural chemicals as well as safety. It also includes vigilance against such things as agricultural equipment with expensive repair lockouts, antibiotic overuse, soil degradation, deforestation and poor disease control. The original assertion was that rational self-interested agents would naturally find and migrate to optimum global outcomes for everyone. Not only is this not true in the abstract game theoretic sense, but it's especially not true when many of the agents are independent developing world smallholders and some are multibillion agritech transnationals.
        pfdietz 1y ago

This is true in the abstract but I don’t see how it applies to this specific case. There are two agents here and the GMO plants will only be planted if planting them is the optimal choice for both.

swiftcoder 1y ago

I don't think you can arbitrarily leave out all the other parties in the agricultural system: the bank, who the farmer may need to borrow from to buy seed, the politicians, who may or may not accept money from the companies producing GMO seeds to produce favourable legislation, the public, who may vote with their wallets when purchasing the resulting crops, and so on...

abdullahkhalids 1y ago

The agents are numerous, as pointed out by sibling comment. The farmer agents only make decisions based on personal profitability. The overall system after some years can evolve to a state where some of the following are true: - the GMO seed maker acquires a monopoly over certain types of seeds, which enables it to reduce farmer profits to below what they were when they were planting non-GMO seeds. - the country's food supply becomes dependent on foreign countries/corporations, which can cause severe problems at international negotiating tables. - the GMO crop has long term health impacts, say after 20 years of use. When these are discovered, it is no longer possible to go back to non-GMO because the infrastructure required for non-GMO crops is not easily reconstructable (for instance a country might reduce its pesticide production significantly once enough farmers have switched to GMO). Similarly, farmers have living knowledge about how to grow certain crop varieties learned by long experience. non-GMO and GMO varieties require different techniques, and non-GMO techniques may be forgotten, making it infeasible to switch back to non-GMO. Decisions to prevent these outcomes can only occur at the government/regulatory level, and may possibly be "GMO are banned".

georgefrowny 1y ago

If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect". Planting the GMO is the optimal choice if you want to survive in the short term, even if you can see disaster looming in the long term despite sweet supplier promises. Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine. A classic multipolar trap for the farmers because they all made an entirely rational decision at every stage and yet they all ended up worse off in the end. And a trap agrotech will be extremely happy to coax farmers into. For their part, if they don't do it, a less scrupulous company would and so they need to do it or get outcompeted - not only must they grow, they just grow faster than the competition to survive long term. And so they are also a trap of their own where they could end up in a strongly negative situation (angry mobs after their blood, say) despite making what was both an optimal and necessary decision at every step. Which is not to say you can't or even shouldn't use biotech to increase crop yield. It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes.

refurb 1y ago
It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes. Yet most of the world relies on such a system and it’s produced the highest advancement of any system. The tale you weaved is clearly an edge case of a monopoly. That’s not the situation we have. And you’re ignoring the fact that farmers will be aware that they are purchasing from a monopoly and that can help weight their decision.
- geysersam 1y ago
  > Yet most of the world relies on such a system and it’s produced the highest advancement of any system. Nah this is a simplification at best. Countries have regulation and laws, none rely only on free markets. GMO is great but it needs governance
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    Why does GMO need governance, vs. (say) hybrid non-GMO seeds? All these arguments smack of badly functioning rationalizations for basically irrational prejudice against GMOs.
    - georgefrowny 1y ago
      Food security in general does need governance and this does includes vulnerability to price fixing of non-GMO seeds and agricultural chemicals as well as safety. It also includes vigilance against such things as agricultural equipment with expensive repair lockouts, antibiotic overuse, soil degradation, deforestation and poor disease control. The original assertion was that rational self-interested agents would naturally find and migrate to optimum global outcomes for everyone. Not only is this not true in the abstract game theoretic sense, but it's especially not true when many of the agents are independent developing world smallholders and some are multibillion agritech transnationals.
      - pfdietz 1y ago