Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
What they get instead is pesticide resistance and non-viable seeds.  That shifts me away from neutral. |
As I tapped I am neutral on this - I can see both sides.
On one side the farmers get to grow food which they would otherwise not be able to grow (or be less able to grow in as much volume), and on the other side they then have to buy seeds exclusively from the multinational seed producers.
Without those producers investing in the research the resistant crops would not exist and people would starve. And them to exist they need a return, but not an unfair one.
The same problem exists in the Pharmaceutical industry - it costs millions to make and test a new treatment but once made how do you decide who gets a return on the investment vs who gets treated.
It is a balance but if we decide that development is no longer needed then we accept the state we are at now, so that farmer doesn't get access to that crop, can't grow as much (if anything) and people maybe die or develop less well so they are always vulnerable.
Again who decides who dies ?
And by what right ?