Originally posted by normbenignThe battle must be fought on several fronts. Bringing the evils of Monsanto into public consciousness is a worthwhile endeavor. That would help drive demand for more sustainable methods, such as aquaponics.
You sound like "the Brain" from pinky and the Brain. If thousands, eventually millions of people built aquaponic systems, industrial farming could become virtually obsolete, or at least greatly diminished in importance.
Originally posted by normbenignPart of the problem is that Monsanto is a brand of evil that manages to fly largely under the radar in this country. Due in large part to the fact that our corporate owned media seldom sees fit to report on it. If you walk down the street, I doubt one in four people could tell you anything about Monsanto. The value of the coming protest is not in directly pressuring Monsanto to change their ways, but in forcing the topic more into the public spotlight.
You sound like "the Brain" from pinky and the Brain. If thousands, eventually millions of people built aquaponic systems, industrial farming could become virtually obsolete, or at least greatly diminished in importance.
Originally posted by rwingettAlthough headquarters is in or near St. Louis Missouri, there is a large Monsanto presence in Midland, MI, and the company partners with the oldest land grant college in the country, Michigan State.
Part of the problem is that Monsanto is a brand of evil that manages to fly largely under the radar in this country. Due in large part to the fact that our corporate owned media seldom sees fit to report on it. If you walk down the street, I doubt one in four people could tell you anything about Monsanto. The value of the coming protest is not in directly p ...[text shortened]... essuring Monsanto to change their ways, but in forcing the topic more into the public spotlight.
If you really think you have a smoking gun, bring your signs to the campus and convince students there. I suggest as before that most corporations do some good and some bad, usually the good outweighs the bad. Each of us has our own ways of dealing with the bad.
Originally posted by rwingettWith all the obsessing that treehuggers are doing about Monsanto, I'm sure they are one of the most well-known food companies in the world.
Part of the problem is that Monsanto is a brand of evil that manages to fly largely under the radar in this country. Due in large part to the fact that our corporate owned media seldom sees fit to report on it. If you walk down the street, I doubt one in four people could tell you anything about Monsanto. The value of the coming protest is not in directly p ...[text shortened]... essuring Monsanto to change their ways, but in forcing the topic more into the public spotlight.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI do notice that companies that don't have a direct link to consumers - like monsanto who exist in the supply chain of food tend to be less 'ethical' - i think its because they have much less customers to please...
Part of the problem is that Monsanto is a brand of evil that manages to fly largely under the radar in this country. Due in large part to the fact that our corporate owned media seldom sees fit to report on it. If you walk down the street, I doubt one in four people could tell you anything about Monsanto. The value of the coming protest is not in directly p ...[text shortened]... essuring Monsanto to change their ways, but in forcing the topic more into the public spotlight.
but i think monsantos current technology is useful, and i would not protest against it - if you want organic grains they are cheap, you can have them, but not many do...
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOf course Monsanto is well known (and universally reviled) amongst "treehuggers". But the extent of Monsanto's crimes against humanity are less well known to the rest of the population. It's time to make them front page news.
With all the obsessing that treehuggers are doing about Monsanto, I'm sure they are one of the most well-known food companies in the world.
Originally posted by normbenignI think you are woefully mistaken. What good corporations do is heavily outweighed by the bad. We are moving more and more toward a world corporatocracy where democratically elected governments fall increasingly under the control of non-democratic corporate hierarchies. And while everybody knows that the Republican party is nothing more than a front for the implementation of corporate rule unhindered by popular oversight, it is becoming increasingly the case that the Democrats are doing the same thing. The only difference is that the Republicans favor the stick in forcing corporate rule onto the public, while the Democrats favor the carrot.
Although headquarters is in or near St. Louis Missouri, there is a large Monsanto presence in Midland, MI, and the company partners with the oldest land grant college in the country, Michigan State.
If you really think you have a smoking gun, bring your signs to the campus and convince students there. I suggest as before that most corporations do some ...[text shortened]... e bad, usually the good outweighs the bad. Each of us has our own ways of dealing with the bad.
Originally posted by e4chrisAs long as Monsanto's current technology remains in the hands of unscrupulous entities who are concerned solely with improving their bottom line, then that technology will prove to be far more dangerous than useful.
I do notice that companies that don't have a direct link to consumers - like monsanto who exist in the supply chain of food tend to be less 'ethical' - i think its because they have much less customers to please...
but i think monsantos current technology is useful, and i would not protest against it - if you want organic grains they are cheap, you can have them, but not many do...
Originally posted by rwingettDo you think that in Somalia they care about grain being genetically modified? They just take what they can get. In a world where lots of people still starve, bringing down a company that increases food production seems to lack morality.
I think you are woefully mistaken. What good corporations do is heavily outweighed by the bad. We are moving more and more toward a world corporatocracy where democratically elected governments fall increasingly under the control of non-democratic corporate hierarchies. And while everybody knows that the Republican party is nothing more than a front for the ...[text shortened]... favor the stick in forcing corporate rule onto the public, while the Democrats favor the carrot.
Originally posted by normbenignIt's a fallacy that you need either Monsanto, industrial farming or GMO crops to feed the world. I know that's what the advocates of industrial farming want you to believe, but it simply isn't true.
Do you think that in Somalia they care about grain being genetically modified? They just take what they can get. In a world where lots of people still starve, bringing down a company that increases food production seems to lack morality.
And how many people do you think are going to be fed when when Monsanto's ecological damage sends the environment into a tailspin? Industrial farming is unsustainable. Unless we pick a different path, the system will eventually crash.
Originally posted by normbenignIf they have any intention of being self sufficient farmers they sure as heck care that they can't sow their own grain but have to pay Monsanto instead.
Do you think that in Somalia they care about grain being genetically modified? They just take what they can get. In a world where lots of people still starve, bringing down a company that increases food production seems to lack morality.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat ecological damage specifically?
It's a fallacy that you need either Monsanto, industrial farming or GMO crops to feed the world. I know that's what the advocates of industrial farming want you to believe, but it simply isn't true.
And how many people do you think are going to be fed when when Monsanto's ecological damage sends the environment into a tailspin? Industrial farming is unsustainable. Unless we pick a different path, the system will eventually crash.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra•Topsoil erosion and land degradation
What ecological damage specifically?
•Enormous reliance on fossil fuels
•Poison from synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides (5.2 billion pounds of pesticides were used in 2006, 2007)
•Pesticide runoff resulting in damage to fisheries
•Colony Collapse disorder
•Plant and animal biodiversity loss through monoculture
•The growth of pesticide resistant superbugs and superweeds
•Unsustainable water usage (some 70% of world water usage is for agriculture).
•The potentially damaging impact of GMO crops.
That's just a partial list of environmental issues concerning industrial agriculture. There are also a litany of health, social and animal welfare issues that are exacerbated through industrial agriculture.
The fact is that industrial farming is incredibly inefficient if you look at the amount of energy used per calorie of nutrient gained. Localized, sustainable, permaculture farming can get the same nutrient content for a fraction of the energy input, while matching or exceeding per acre output. The only area where industrial farming is superior is that it is more profitable to those owning the big agricultural companies. It's more profitable (in the short run) to destroy the environment and destabilize whole communities than it is to farm in a sustainable method. Make no mistake, Monsanto is one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Originally posted by rwingettGMO's are intended to address many of these issues by increasing yields and reducing the need for fertilizer, water and/or pesticides. Can you elaborate on the "potentially damaging impact"? And can you be more specific about your suggested alternative to "industrial farming" - how would it work, why would it be more effective and why aren't farmers doing it already if it's more efficient? Perhaps you can cite some study which shows your favoured alternative to "industrial farming" is more efficient?
•Topsoil erosion and land degradation
•Enormous reliance on fossil fuels
•Poison from synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides (5.2 billion pounds of pesticides were used in 2006, 2007)
•Pesticide runoff resulting in damage to fisheries
•Colony Collapse disorder
•Plant and animal biodiversity loss through monoculture
•The growth of pesticide resi ...[text shortened]... a sustainable method. Make no mistake, Monsanto is one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt would take more time than I have available today to do that type of post justice (I have a protest to go to after all), but I did post a link to one such example on page 5 of this thread. Suffice it to say (for now) that Permaculture is the answer. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with that term in the interim.
GMO's are intended to address many of these issues by increasing yields and reducing the need for fertilizer, water and/or pesticides. Can you elaborate on the "potentially damaging impact"? And can you be more specific about your suggested alternative to "industrial farming" - how would it work, why would it be more effective and why aren't farmers doi ...[text shortened]... study which shows your favoured alternative to "industrial farming" is more efficient?