Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

[necro]Ethics: Your choice

Thread Locked

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 7:54pm

Kyouzou

Kyouzou

4,753 posts

I believe they should be patented, but the fees should be paid by, various companies hoping to sell the product, instead of the farmer. I'm not sure if that makes sense to you guys? But the way I see it, that eliminates the need for farmers to pay a price they don't have, and at the same time, increases the availability of the product.

 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 9:12pm

MRWalker82

MRWalker82

3,869 posts

Moderator

Now do you think this is ethical? to patent seeds/crops? I mean I hate plagiarism/theft but I also think this crosses the line a little bit.

I do not think that a patent is ethical at all. I understand the amount of work that goes into creating new crops, my grandfather did just that for a seed company back in Illinois when he was alive, but a patent and licensing fee for the use of the crop is ridiculous. This drives up costs, puts smaller operations out of business, and is passed on to the consumers from market. Economically this is a very unsound practice, especially in an era when small family farms are going out of business regularly.

I would recommend that as the seeds must be sold that the person that created the seed be granted a small royalty from either the sales of the seed. In this way the person is compensated for his efforts although not in such a manner that it would preclude smaller corporate or even familial farms from being able to afford to grow an effective, viable crop and make a profit worth their efforts.

 

Posted Jun 25, '10 at 9:13pm

MRWalker82

MRWalker82

3,869 posts

Moderator

I misspoke. The patent I am fine with, it is the outrageous fees being charged for the usage of the patented product that I find unethical. Apologies for my oversight.

 

Posted Jun 26, '10 at 2:25pm

DDX

DDX

3,470 posts

for me, if i were the farmer, it'd depend on questions such as:

"exactly how much of the land did this occupy?"

"Who was aware and when?"

"did the seeds kill what had already been sown, or is the land fallow?"

"could it be taken to a higher court?"

"did the farmer invest anything for that crop to yield?"

well see monsanto does these random sweeps, they take seeds (unknowing to their owners) and scan em for their little DNA strands, if they have the special monsanto patented strands then they order all the crops be burned and all the seeds be burned because it could have cross bred.

I mean for a farmer you crops are ALL of your investments

the seeds themselves do not "kill" any of the other plants more like they just interbreed with the plants.
Monsanto themselves do not care about plants, more just that selective strand of DNA that is in the plants (which makes them resistant to the "roundup" pesticides)

 

Posted Jun 26, '10 at 3:37pm

Kyouzou

Kyouzou

4,753 posts

At that point that's some serious bull****; as far as I'm concerned they have no right to do that.

 

Posted Jun 26, '10 at 5:18pm

DDX

DDX

3,470 posts

At that point that's some serious bull****; as far as I'm concerned they have no right to do that.

exactly man, that's what I feel like is UNethical, because the farmer had no prior knowledge that monsanto sneakily tests their crops. it's pretty insidious.

 

Posted Jun 26, '10 at 5:24pm

Kyouzou

Kyouzou

4,753 posts

So you're destroying a persons lively hood, on the ODDS that one of your products has been compromised. I say they should be forced to test every crop individually. On top of that every farmer who's crops have been destroyed needs to be payed a reparation.

 

Posted Jun 26, '10 at 5:26pm

DDX

DDX

3,470 posts

I say they should be forced to test every crop individually. On top of that every farmer who's crops have been destroyed needs to be payed a reparation.

well they take a sample (an 1 acre or something sample and test everything) and if at least 1 plant has been compromised the entire generation is compromised is who they do it

 

Posted Jun 26, '10 at 5:41pm

Kyouzou

Kyouzou

4,753 posts

That's crap, that's saying lets take a group of a 1,000 people if one of them is a criminal, then they're all criminals. Why not just destroy the infected ones, in the long run that helps the companies image. What they're doing now just makes them look like total *******s.

 

Posted Jun 26, '10 at 5:45pm

pHacon

pHacon

1,313 posts

Why not just destroy the infected ones, in the long run that helps the companies image. What they're doing now just makes them look like total *******s.

Because that takes more time and effort, it's easier to just get rid of them all, and most everyone wants to take the easy way out.