India: Greed has to end
17/3/16 19:58![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIndia cuts Monsanto cotton seed royalties despite threat to quit
India 'not scared' if Monsanto leaves, as GM cotton row escalates
Of course, everyone is well aware of the farce that Monsanto has been playing for years. The general scheme goes as follows. Some limited seed funds are given by the company to a university or lab for a one-year period. Once the product or process is developed, it is patented with the researcher and the company. The company then buys out the share of the patent from the researcher. Such companies or patents or products are bought and re-bought many times over by financial capitalists, and the resultant drug, crop or other product is priced many times over the usual prices. That is, by the way, how US health care has become the most expensive while remaining nowhere being efficient or accessible enough for the American people.
Meanwhile, back to India... The introduction of GMO crops, while being crucial for feeding millions of people, has changed the landscape of the Indian cotton industry, rendering its production patterns and profitability rates unrecognisable, ultimately turning India from a major exporter to a major importer of agricultural technology and know-how. And this goes way beyond the cotton industry, as this crop production is very closely intertwined with other important crops an industries. After cotton, the corn industry has been growing exponentially, with big profits for the companies that are running the show, and of course major producers like India desperately needing the relevant technology in order to stay afloat on the market, meet the demand of the local market, and use their potential in a way as efficient as possible. The problem is, India is still lagging far behind other countries in terms of productivity, even after years of Monsanto involvement.
As for Monsanto's corporate practices and instincts, it is no surprise that their talk of "technology" has served as a convenient smokescreen that "tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed", as Dr. Vandana Shiva, an activist, author and founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, has argued. So, while a possible Monsanto withdrawal from India may hurt both that country's agriculture and the company's bottom-line in the short term, it would rather have a positive effect in the long run, as it would demonstrate that neo-colonial economic practices of exploitation and blackmail will not hold water in the 21st century.
India 'not scared' if Monsanto leaves, as GM cotton row escalates
Of course, everyone is well aware of the farce that Monsanto has been playing for years. The general scheme goes as follows. Some limited seed funds are given by the company to a university or lab for a one-year period. Once the product or process is developed, it is patented with the researcher and the company. The company then buys out the share of the patent from the researcher. Such companies or patents or products are bought and re-bought many times over by financial capitalists, and the resultant drug, crop or other product is priced many times over the usual prices. That is, by the way, how US health care has become the most expensive while remaining nowhere being efficient or accessible enough for the American people.
Meanwhile, back to India... The introduction of GMO crops, while being crucial for feeding millions of people, has changed the landscape of the Indian cotton industry, rendering its production patterns and profitability rates unrecognisable, ultimately turning India from a major exporter to a major importer of agricultural technology and know-how. And this goes way beyond the cotton industry, as this crop production is very closely intertwined with other important crops an industries. After cotton, the corn industry has been growing exponentially, with big profits for the companies that are running the show, and of course major producers like India desperately needing the relevant technology in order to stay afloat on the market, meet the demand of the local market, and use their potential in a way as efficient as possible. The problem is, India is still lagging far behind other countries in terms of productivity, even after years of Monsanto involvement.
As for Monsanto's corporate practices and instincts, it is no surprise that their talk of "technology" has served as a convenient smokescreen that "tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed", as Dr. Vandana Shiva, an activist, author and founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, has argued. So, while a possible Monsanto withdrawal from India may hurt both that country's agriculture and the company's bottom-line in the short term, it would rather have a positive effect in the long run, as it would demonstrate that neo-colonial economic practices of exploitation and blackmail will not hold water in the 21st century.
(no subject)
Date: 23/3/16 14:53 (UTC)Argument and discussion demand accuracy and precision. Language is tricky, even more so through text without the benefit of facial expressions and other cues. I mean, in an informal setting like this, of course no one is asking for cited references and bibliographies and the vetting of every possible source. But the fact remains, it would also be absurd to just say: "Eh, say whatever you want, it doesn't matter if you can actually back it up with argument and sources." There is the value in trying to do better in how we argue - and I'd think that a good way to accomplish that is to point out places where such improvement can be made.
I mean, which of these two statements is more valuable?
-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this.
-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this. Hey: there's a problem with source X you're using. If you use someone else, your argument will be even stronger!
If "one among many otherwise reliable links" comes from a not-so-reputable source, then pointing that out helps the poster in the future to not include that source, so that ALL of that poster's links will be reliable. Being told "hey, you're wrong about this" is not an "attack," unless someone is more concerned with looking correct than actually being correct.
With regards to this OP: the issues raised are real, and the arguments presented are strong ones (though I do disagree with the ongoing vilification of Monsanto, a company guilty of almost none of the things it is constantly accused of.) The problem is that those otherwise strong arguments can only be weakened by including the words of Dr. Shiva, someone who lies about being a physicist and who places her own personal political ideology over the actual lives and survival of the people she purports to represent. If pointing out that including Dr. Shiva is a bad rhetorical move somehow equates to some kind of attack that has "wounded" the OP, then I'm left to wonder just how fragile the nature of conversation has become.
(no subject)
Date: 23/3/16 20:23 (UTC)Wouldn't it have been a beautiful world if everyone thought of it that way!
It would've been an even more awesome world if everyone responded in the way you describe. I've yet to see that happening, though.
The fragility of the conversation is not the point. So many people's drive to knock the conversation down just for its own sake, is what I'm talking about. That may not include you, but the observation kind of sticks out after a few similar cases that I've observed within a short time span.
But don't mind me. I'm just a fragile little snowflake who doesn't know what he's talking about. Do proceed if you please.