The good life tv comedy programme could this be done today

cootambear

olly300 wrote: »

I have you watched and read about the tactics tobacco companies and powder baby milk companies employ/employed in the developing world? If you had then you know saying selling seeds of GM strains to subsistence farmers in the developing world isn't as simple as it seems.

It's very easy to lie to and mislead those without even a primary school education.


Oddly I don't actually care too much if us in the West are ripped off with GM as we are quite capable of taking care of ourselves. Shown by farmers fields being attacked when GM crops are planted.



The plant is still fertile and can produce babies i.e. runners. You can't propagate them at the moment but the license won't last for ever and in addition as you are a private individual who is likely to tell on you?

BTW I've had flowers with licenses which said I wasn't allowed to propagate them and sell them on. There was nothing stopping me from propagating them and giving them away.

Thats your and my garden. We arent going to get a visit from the patent holders. We would if we were farmers.

COOLTRIKERCHICK

we shouldnt need to listen to our children, common sense should make us be more green, and look after our natural resources...

cootambear

olly300 wrote: »

I have you watched and read about the tactics tobacco companies and powder baby milk companies employ/employed in the developing world? If you had then you know saying selling seeds of GM strains to subsistence farmers in the developing world isn't as simple as it seems.

I have read about the tactics of the companies you mentioned. As GROWTH has led to better education for the masses in developing countries they are now much more unlikely to take these claims at face value and have an understandable suspicion of western companies, underpinned by growing understanding of the consequences of imperialism in Africa.

Lets take a practical example. Subsistence farmers are by definition absolutely concerned with crop yields. Farmer X decides to try out GM crops. His neighbours watch with great interest.

Outcome 1. Crop yield increases, he has to spend less on herbicide, it is more drought resistant, and damage from pests is reduced. He and his neighbours opt for GM

Outcome 2. Crop yield decreases, his herbicide usage must stay at previous levels, and damage from pests is at previous levels, there is no drought resistance. He and his neighbours continue to use local strains.

I think those farmers have enough sense to make a rational choice - because literally its the difference between a full belly and an empty one.

Subistence

It's very easy to lie to and mislead those without even a primary school education.

The view that people from developing countries lack the capacity to make choices underpins many arguments from the greens, NGO`s etc.

Oddly I don't actually care too much if us in the West are ripped off with GM as we are quite capable of taking care of ourselves. Shown by farmers fields being attacked when GM crops are planted.

So many new mouths to feed say the greens, lets destroy crops. GM has unknown risks, lets sabotage research. Many green arguments are not interested in whether scientific advances can help us or not, they are against technology in general.


The plant is still fertile and can produce babies i.e. runners. You can't propagate them at the moment but the license won't last for ever and in addition as you are a private individual who is likely to tell on you?

BTW I've had flowers with licenses which said I wasn't allowed to propagate them and sell them on. There was nothing stopping me from propagating them and giving them away.

...............................

cootambear

rhiwfield wrote: »

Cootambear, I sincerely hope it isnt your children doing the lambasting, whyever would they do that?

CTC, cant remember the last time we bought new furniture, nearly all ours has come from ebay, only with the financial crisis second hand furniture has become more in demand.

If we had to cut down to avoid going back to work (and being told what to do which I hate!) then the first thing to go would be one of the cars, as having two is a luxury.

Absolutely. About half of my possesions are second hand. My telly cost £30 from a charity shop - I got it when everyone was ditching their big TVs for flatscreens. I`m not against flatscreens, and the upcoming 3D I think is fantastic. But flatscreen prices vs £30 wasnt worth it to me.

Soubrette

cootambear wrote: »

Lets take a practical example. Subsistence farmers are by definition absolutely concerned with crop yields. Farmer X decides to try out GM crops. His neighbours watch with great interest.

Outcome 1. Crop yield increases, he has to spend less on herbicide, it is more drought resistant, and damage from pests is reduced. He and his neighbours opt for GM

Outcome 2. Crop yield decreases, his herbicide usage must stay at previous levels, and damage from pests is at previous levels, there is no drought resistance. He and his neighbours continue to use local strains.

I think those farmers have enough sense to make a rational choice - because literally its the difference between a full belly and an empty one.

Do you think there may be a conflict between the short term rational choice and the long term rational choice.

Your example above is an excellent short term rational choice but it may need to a long term problem of GM companies raising the prices of their seed so it's unaffordable to the third world farmer.

At the moment GM Companies have a large interest in getting GM crops accepted and the third world can be seen as the back door in for them. Once it becomes accepted technology and the developed world starts paying mega bucks for the seeds then surely the third world farmer is likely priced out of the market (as we can easily see has happened in the Pharmaceutical industry).

My point therefore is that a short term rational decision is not necessarily a long term rational decision. Would you agree with this?

On a personal note can I say a heart felt congratulations on not reacting to the less than polite posts on this thread so the whole things hasn't degenerated into insults - it's always interesting to see an alternative pov, even if not necessarily one I agree with

Sou

COOLTRIKERCHICK

rhiwfield wrote: »

Cootambear, I sincerely hope it isnt your children doing the lambasting, whyever would they do that?

CTC, cant remember the last time we bought new furniture, nearly all ours has come from ebay, only with the financial crisis second hand furniture has become more in demand.

If we had to cut down to avoid going back to work (and being told what to do which I hate!) then the first thing to go would be one of the cars, as having two is a luxury.

If we wanted to really go back to bare bone spending, then the bike would have to go....tv.... i would have totaly withdrawl symtons if the computer went:eek:.....

this year we are trying not to buy coal.... and only burn wood, so we are slowly getting our winter 'stash' together..

Tom and Barbara made their own electricity with the pig poo, but i should imagine in this day and age it would be Solar Panels..

we have one for the caravan, to trickle feed the battery, which only cost £10 i think in maplins...

wonder how much it would cost to buy a system to run the bare basics in a house...?

Soubrette

COOLTRIKERCHICK wrote: »

If we wanted to really go back to bare bone spending, then the bike would have to go....tv.... i would have totaly withdrawl symtons if the computer went:eek:.....

What? No computer? Nooooooooooo

I'd say goodbye to the tv and the phone first and try and make the OH cycle the 4 miles uphill to work and get rid of the car too

To my mind the computer is the best tool in the fight of the consumer against big business

Consumer Revenge and all that

Sou

mardatha

Re kids pestering/fining their parents.. whatever happened to "seen and not heard" ?? The Victorians were not half so daft as we are !

Lotus-eater

cootambear wrote: »

GM, yes. `Oil dependency`, no. Oil is a natural resource we can and are using for our benefit. Talking about `dependency`, (a hairsbreath from addiction) is as warped as saying that we are addicted to food. I have argued against those who are in favour of stopping the use of oil derived fertilisers.

Warped is a strange word, we need food to survive, our bodies need it, oil we use to feed the lifestyle and food need our planet wants, not needs. If we hadn't had oil, our population wouldn't be as high as it is, therefore we are dependant on oil. If we didn't have it (tomorrow), a lot of the population of the world would die, pretty much a fact.
Addiction, not too strong a word for the way the world uses oil, needs oil, desires oil and will use oil until it runs out, that my friend is what partly we are trying to make you understand, when it goes, we are in deep stumm unless some technology comes along to take over.

No one here has posted about being for stopping the use of oil based fertilisers overnight, (so tbh you've pretty much argued with yourself) what we want is for us (in person) not to use them and for agriculture to move towards a more sustainable method of farming.
Using oil based fertilisers is not a sustainable method of farming.

Despite what you think, food grown in these deserts (I mean the UK deserts of farmland, not the actual deserts you were thinking about) does have a lower nutritional value, also it has to do with shorter growing times, the type of seed chosen and I don't think I need to remind anyone of the unknown effects of the multitude of sprays used on them.

The results are all around the world, of agriculture taking from the soil and not putting back, big business might take it up another notch now and again, and find another method to keep production higher than it should be, but eventually it all catches up with us.
Oh sure, in your Utopia, we can continue to find another GM crop or miracle pesticide/herbicide that will give us another 10 years of higher than normal production. But in the end nature always catches up.

Isn't it better to find a way that works with her, rather than fight against her?

Well obviously in your case, you think no, man will triumph over all and all that.
But I think that food grown in this way isn't food as we know it, it doesn't have the same nutrients in it as food used to. You seem to regard this as a straight fight between organic and non organic, well to start with, almost all the non organic foods results from tests show nothing of the important link between food from, say the 40's and 50's and the food grown today.
This is not a straight organic, non organic fight, this is lots of different things, so I'm afraid your std web answers won't work here and you need to do some more reading to discover what you are trying to answer.

cootambear

Soubrette wrote: »

Do you think there may be a conflict between the short term rational choice and the long term rational choice.

Your example above is an excellent short term rational choice but it may need to a long term problem of GM companies raising the prices of their seed so it's unaffordable to the third world farmer.

If they hike prices then farmers would go back to growing local varieties.

At the moment GM Companies have a large interest in getting GM crops accepted and the third world can be seen as the back door in for them. Once it becomes accepted technology and the developed world starts paying mega bucks for the seeds(as we can easily see has happened in the Pharmaceutical industry). then surely the third world farmer is likely priced out of the market


The reality is that a scandalous pricing out of the market happens now - in the form of massive subsidies to farmers in the US and EU. Thus we have the farcical situation where for example, rice is exported to the far east at prices that the local economy cannot beat.

This costs the South and East many billions each year in export revenue, balance of payments, farmers losing jobs, etc. Therefore it would not matter a jot whether the crop was GM, Conventional, or Organic, these evil - (and I don`t use that word lightly) - subsidies would still price the export crop out of the market. (As an aside, how about cutting farm subsidies instead of public services)?
Re pharmaceuticals, from memory I believe that some african nations clubbed together and said to big pharma that they would not buy any more drugs until they dropped their prices, which they did.

My point therefore is that a short term rational decision is not necessarily a long term rational decision. Would you agree with this?

As above, If they hike prices then farmers would go back to growing local varieties.

On a personal note can I say a heart felt congratulations on not reacting to the less than polite posts on this thread so the whole things hasn't degenerated into insults - it's always interesting to see an alternative pov, even if not necessarily one I agree with

Sou

No problem, I always enjoy a good debate, and it is a tribute to this forum that it hasnt descended in to a flame war.