UGH, Monsanto even worse now

Discussion in 'News from around the damp planet' started by Pakanohida, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. Pakanohida

    Pakanohida Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38

    It gets incredibly worse. =(

    Source:

    https://farmwars.info/?p=7760







    Personally, I want someone to take up the mantle of an inclusive lawsuit that indicts the CEO, all upper level management, all stock holders, and staff for biological world wide terrorism, & crimes against humanity. :bow:
     
  2. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Monsanto reminds me of one of those Sci-Fi flick Monsters that won't die, hard to kill and something that Evil Government Scientists want to save for use as a future weapon of power over others. Kinda like that creature in Alien. Impenetrable hard outer shell, all manner of blood, slime and other toxic poisons for which anyone who dare takes it on will pay for it in the end.

    [​IMG]



    -
     
  3. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Yep they are monsters for sure. I hope everyone saw my post on the March against Monsanto which is happening worldwide on the 25th May.
     
  5. Pakanohida

    Pakanohida Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Even little ol' Coos Bay, & North Bend Oregon has heard of it! I was very surprised yesterday in a few stores.
     
  6. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The information you provided here is actually scarier than most folks realize. This aluminum resistance Patent for Crop plants on a Farm for Profit Venture offers no help whatsoever in the wild Natural World which is just as effected. There is alot the Governments are not saying about this climate change. They are actually watering down how bad it really is. This stupid Scientific Projection Models are continually having to be revised because ultimately they are only as good as the data they are using and that data no doubt is flawed in the first place. The weather mechanism are not as efficient at creating rainfall and hydrating the Natural Systems as they once were. The Sierras and Rockies are no longer getting the precipitation (especially snowpack) as they once did. This must be frightening to the experts that plan for future growth and/or even no growth maintenance of their systems. Why does the Snowpack in the Sierras and Mountains like Shasta have high concentrations of aluminum in their content ?

    People don't realize the impact of excessive aluminum just to plants itself. Plants will stop talking in water and nutrients to protect themselves. There is also evidence it is preventing some of the symbiosis with mycorrhizae from taking place. When all of this happens, then the tree weakens. When that happens, the Bark Beetles take advantage of a stressed situation and simply do what they do. All of this goes back on mankind doing the wrong things again. Bark Beetles are not at fault, the trees are not at fault, it's just a gradual breakdown of the system which has finally accumulated enough damage to finally be seen by the naked eye. The fact is, life in these systems was long in trouble before it became visible to the average Joe.

    I'm actually working on a post, but I'll try and get some studies linked here.
     
  7. 9anda1f

    9anda1f Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,046
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E Washington, USA
    Climate:
    Semi-Arid Shrub Steppe (BsK)
    Some Monsanto relief ... genetic engineer points out multiple fallacies in Monsanto claims:

    https://www.alternet.org/food/why-monsanto-wrong-about-gm-crop-promises
     
  8. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love that one quote at the end. The same could be said for corporate Commercial Science and the Science of discovery. There's a big fat huge difference.

    Thanks for taking up the Update Slack with Michael gone.
     
  9. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about the second sentence: 'A new peer-reviewed study...'?

    But I do take your point, there is a huge difference in outcomes between scientific endeavour and discovery, and that which is then bought and controlled by global corporations. I thank you for making this distinction.
     
  10. matto

    matto Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Same truths are being levelled at the World Court...

     
  11. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My mentor quotes the following (and so, now do I):

    Data is not information; information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom.
     
  12. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another beautiful quote: "[It] is not a program of science, it is a parody of science."

    That pretty much sums up the twisted use of Science by those promoting themselves as the world's infallible leadership[irrelevant whether - religious -Big Business(science) or political] and why our Natural World's wonderful life sustaining mechanisms are headed for artificial life support. Corporations will do whatever it takes to pimp their wares and not have a twinge of conscience when irresponsible decision making has horrible side effects.
     
  13. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me guess, DNA is nothing more than meaningless patterns, some of which just happen to accomplish some amazing building blocks. Well, this explains the thinking and justification by Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syrgenta and others who get a free pass by many world government leaders whose pockets are lined by the entities in question.

    Who's Watching the Watchers ?
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Since corporations get people's rights, I think they should also get the responsibilities that go along with it, ie: sentenced to jail(shut down) for doing things like..oh I don't know...causing an entire town to get cancer and other hideous and torturous diseases. Any fatality at the workplace is manslaughter..what's that get these days? 6 months in jail? Yeah, you'd see a lot of businesses fold up shop, but the new ones that fill in the voids would be a better breed.
     
  15. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would appear that the quote was not very well understood, if at all. Please allow me to elaborate:

    Data is something we collect through experimentation/observation. But on it own, it's just figures/words. Without analysis, it provides very little in the way of information. However, once our data has been processed (codified) and we have compiled the information (evidence) we need, if we then connect this information with other sources of information (and sometimes from across disciplines), then we arrive at a point of knowledge, supported via multiple points of information (evidence). But, the 'story' of science does not end there. In order to verify our knowledge (evidence) base, we re-test our outcomes/findings via the (single-blind, double-blind, etc.) peer-review process. And only then do we arrive at the point of wisdom.
     
  16. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On the question of DNA: The answer depends on one's definition of the term 'meaningless'. If the question is, for example: "What does DNA mean?" Then I have no answer. If, however, the question is: "What does DNA do?" Then the answer I will use is thus:

    DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.

    Can DNA even have 'meaning'? What is the meaning of 'meaning'? Perhaps one is referring to the 'meaning of life'?

    I'll ponder all of this while I go and hang my washing on the line in the beautiful sunshine of this mid-winter's day...
     
  17. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The story of what science once was, "Discovery" , "Wonder" etc died a long time ago. Science basically today is obsessed with politics, ideology and satisfying corporate interests.

    Oh I'm sure Monsanto, Bayer, Syrgenta, Dow Chemical, SweTree, ArborGen, etc etc etc all have their own Peer Reviewed results, therefore maybe we should blindly accept & have FAITH in their version of truth like any other conventional Parishioner.

    Unfortunately I don't have the time or patience for definition shell games on this subject. I mean I've heard asinine explanations like "Rocks in a landslide are information" and other B.S. The fact is this religiosity of the term "Junk DNA" has done more harm to our understanding of the informational content of DNA, mot that any other religious presupposition. Evolutionist and Geneticist David Suzuki had it right when he spoke of a gene that codes for a specific toxin has a host of other genes from that organism with which it works with for guidance and practical application. It's IRRELEVANT how it all got there. The fact is, that this dogma has been used as an excuse to break the barrier and genetic constraints found in every genetic code and horizontally transfer this into whatever other organism is going to make some Corporate entity more obscene financial gain ignoring any and all consequences of their actions. Any counter Peer Review to the contrary at that point becomes shouted down by Big-Business and the Governments that support and pimp their wares. Again, who's watching the watchers - Answer very few if the economy and worldview is considered for the greater good. In the mean time, Nature continues to get screwed in the end and that eventually effects mankind. Peer-Review is only as good as the Panel of Peers put in charge. Looking at the bastardized state of our world, I'd say it's failing miserably. Let's just say I don't have your brand of religious faith.
     
  18. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I respect the opinion, but reject the premise, in its entirety. Science is science, and should not be mistaken for pseudo-science. As such I support the scientific positions as supported by such esteemed bodies as the Australian Academy of Science, The Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences, etc. Making broad sweeping generalisations about the integrity of the scientific community is akin to making generalisations about another's gender, sexuality, cultural heritage, etc. It is disingenuous at its best, and downright ignorant at its worst.

    I would suggest 'we blindly accept' nothing, and that we go to the original source of the claim and test (review) it if we are in doubt as to its validity. This is what science does - day in, day out. Anything else attributed to science it merely white noise.

    If one is not happy with any particular review process used to make valid any particular scientific statement, then one should challenge that particular process, or not. That is one's choice. However, to paint the whole scientific community as biased based on one's own prejudices is, in my personal estimation, infantile. I adhere to no religious doctrine; I'm an atheist.
     
  19. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Corporate entities do seem to get a free pass, especially if their innovations help promote a Nation's perceived National Security interests. The average person would be jailed for life if convicted of some of the dastardly deeds companies like Monsanto has done.
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Further, on the above issue: There are very few (major) 'scientific controversies'; string theory is but one example.

    However, albeit often in a very well meaning manner, this does not stop some people at some times confusing established scientific knowledge (e.g. the sequencing of genetic material can be manipulated by human intervention) with that of scientific application (e.g. Monsanto uses genetic manipulation to fuck up the planet, or not).

    In the interests of collegiality among members of the PRI Forum, I think it is important to clarify one's position from time to time, and I trust that the following article helps in this regard:

    University of California Museum of Paleontology (no date) What controversy: Is a controversy misrepresented or blown out of proportion?
     

Share This Page

-->