3 ms·
Seed sharing is fundamental to human civilization. It is a human right. Companies like Monsanto that belligerently interfere with this by claiming “ownership” o
by oregano 10mo ago
Seed sharing is fundamental to human civilization. It is a human right. Companies like Monsanto that belligerently interfere with this by claiming “ownership” of seeds are nothing less than evil.
- sejje 10mo agoThis is a new human right I didn't even know I had
- gcr 10mo agoyou're not a farmer
- sejje 10mo agoNo, I'm a human
- IAmBroom 10mo agoThe comments in this thread make it abundantly clear there's nothing new about the right. Seed sharing predates your "TIL" knowledge of it.
- sejje 10mo agoThere's nothing new about the practice. It becoming a human right would certainly be new. That's like saying backhanding your kid is a human right. Every human on the planet practiced it forever.
- oregano 10mo ago[flagged]
- knollimar 10mo agoTheir point is doing a thing for a long time doesn't enshrine it as a right. The comment before could have said "should be a human right". imo it's very frustrating having people say "thing I want is a right". What gives them that right? Are all laws not violation of rights if you extend that
- overfeed 10mo agoThey are completely ignoring the context of this whole thread, which exists because the highest court in the land (Kenyan land, that is) has affirmed that right. Ggp's is as absurd as a North Korean commenting on a SCOTUS ruling on the right to a fair trial by saying "This is a new human right I didn't even know I had."
- sejje 10mo agoThe rights of particular countries' citizens aren't usually construed with 'human rights.' I believe 'human rights' is of UN origin. The rights of US citizens, for instance, don't currently apply to the folks getting deported. It's a big controversial point, but of course the rights of the constitution aren't guaranteed to some guy in France. Human rights aren't those. In this case, Kenyan citizens gained a right, not humans.
- overfeed 10mo ago> Human rights aren't those. What are they, then? If you can name one, I'll find you a jurisdiction where that right is not respected. Your (incorrect, IMO) definition of human rights based on the lowest common denominator whittles them down to nothing. Fundamentally I suspect what you and I are calling "human rights" is not the same thing at all.
- biophysboy 10mo agoAll rights now encoded in law were originally moral claims.
- red-iron-pine 10mo ago[flagged]
- krapp 10mo agoIt makes more sense as a human right than the four freedoms of Free Software, tbh. Agriculture is absolutely critical to the survival of our species and civilization. Being able to edit and copy software code really isn't.
- sejje 10mo agoThe freedoms of software aren't a human right, either. I do think we should protect the ability to run your own code, via the law, but again, not a human right.
- oregano 10mo agoPerhaps because you have never had to think about the role agriculture plays in civilization. Encourage you to look into this issue more.
- sejje 10mo agoI'm likely more connected to agriculture than you think. And I think seed-sharing should be enshrined legally. That's not the same as human rights. I think it's a silly practice lately to start proclaiming all these things are human rights. Particularly (not this case) when those things have to be given to them by other humans.
- alkonaut 10mo agoI don't know what exactly "seed sharing" means (and the article doesn't describe it fully) but merely owning anything communally, or owning property - which includes the right to transfer it - seems like obvious human rights. What's actually a human right and what isn't will depend on who you ask, but just "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others." seems to be applicable (UN Charter §17)? It doesn't feel like "random thing I think is important is a human right" at all?
- sejje 10mo agoThe commercial GMO seed developers require that you buy seed from them every year. You're not allowed to collect the seed and re-plant it next year. Or share it, I guess. That's in the US, not sure how it plays out around the world. They just want to lock in the farmers, in an situation where they can't do it technologically. So they're doing it via the law. It's...basically what you'd expect of the world today. Sad, but I suppose they argue that they should have IP rights just like any industry. And you'd think they'd just boycott on principle, but it puts them at a big disadvantage in many cases, as their yields go down while national harvest goes up, making sale prices lower. So it's not easy to see what to do about it from the farmer's perspective.
- banku_brougham 10mo ago9th Amendment, US Constitution, ratified 1789: >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- sejje 10mo agoGood luck defending those pretend rights in court. It can be difficult enough for the clearly-enumerated ones.
- Nasrudith 10mo agoUnironically, rights get clarified by new attempts at overreach to violate them whether through new depths of depravity or technological innovations making the previously fantastic possible.
- sejje 10mo agoThat's fair, and I think it's a reasonable take. I agree with you. I just find it annoying when people declare [thing] is a right. Often they don't even understand what a right is, and haven't thought about where their rights are derived. If they mean it should be a right, I probably agree in many cases. How do you feel about companies developing GMOs and then saying farmers can't keep the seed? If we don't protect their products legally, will we continue to have GMO advances? Is enough of the research happening at a non-profit level? I don't know the answers, so I haven't decided myself.
- wslh 10mo agoSadly, there is no tax that Nature itself can collect on Monsanto and others
- asacrowflies 10mo agoMaybe mass Extinction