Jump to content
The Corroboree

CβL

Members2
  • Content count

    1,772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Posts posted by CβL


  1. Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
    Indiana farmer must pay agribusiness giant $84,000 for patent infringement
    - Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of biotech giant Monsanto, ordering Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, to pay Monsanto more than $84,000 for patent infringement for using second generation Monsanto seeds purchased second hand—a ruling which will have broad implications for the ownership of 'life' and farmers' rights in the future.

    aleqm5guuwpkgrlsye_dfg8sljzxcuxneq.jpg Indiana grain farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman walks past the US Supreme Court on February 19, 2013 in Washington (AFP/File, Mandel Ngan) In the case, Bowman had purchased soybean seeds from a grain elevator—where seeds are cheaper than freshly engineered Monsanto GE (genetically engineered) seeds and typically used for animal feed rather than for crops. The sources of the seeds Bowman purchased were mixed and were not labeled. However, some were "Roundup Ready" patented Monsanto seeds.

    The Supreme Court Justices, who gave Monsanto a warm reception from the start, ruled that Bowman had broken the law because he planted seeds which naturally yielded from the original patented seed products—Monsanto's policies prohibit farmers from saving or reusing seeds from Monsanto born crops.

    Farmers who use Monsanto's seeds are forced to buy the high priced new seeds every year.

    Ahead of the expected ruling, Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), asked in an op-ed earlier this year, "Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?":

     

    Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law, but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?

     

     

    [Monsanto's] logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.

     

    Bowman had argued that he was respecting his contract with Monsanto, purchasing directly from them each year, but couldn't afford Monsanto's high prices for his riskier late season crops. Bowman's defense argued that Monsanto's patent was "exhausted" through the process of natural seed reproduction and no longer applied to Bowman's second generation seeds.

    “If they don’t want me to go to the elevator and buy that grain," Bowman had stated, "then Congress should pass a law saying you can’t do it."

    The Center for Food Safety released a report in February which shows three corporations control more than half of the global commercial seed market.

    As a result, from 1995-2011 the average cost to plant 1 acre of soybeans rose 325%.

    As AP reports, more than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

    Vandana Shiva, an expert on seed patents and their effects on farmers around the world, wrote recently:

     

    Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.

     

     

    Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.

     

    _______________________

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

  2. I think it's more important to educate rather than to advertise. That which can be won by advertising, can be lost to it. But if we can educate people two things:

    1) Monsanto is up to no good, for these reasons: {the reasons}
    2) You need to tell people and start discussion, it's already almost too late, there is no time left to waste - act now.

    Then that's a much better option. Once you understand, you tend not to forget - because you can re-derive anything you did forget.

    • Like 4

  3. That's correct. You don't own anything. This is about protecting land for a meagre sum of money. How else can we save this land? Other than to all unite and rise up against the corporations (lol! like that'll happen with most people still amped about what's on TV tomorrow night).

    I know in NZ - if you bought land you would still be forced to pay rates (probably the case in Aus too). So they've practically forced you to make the land into a capitalist venture (tourism, farming, or whatever), or forever rely on people's donations to pay rent (unreliable at best - if people will barely donate to buy a piece of land on behalf [with a certificate], then will they donate to pay for a park ranger? Not in the same numbers I should think). A horrible situation. You could rescue the land, and then lose funds and the land gets swept up and cleared again.
    Other option - give to the conservation department... which are still the long arm of the government, and can easily give the land to roading of housing projects as the government sees fit.

    I do not see a way in the current system to protect land for a longish period of time. Does anyone else?

    • Like 1

  4. To make it clear, I wouldn't be in it to get the land for myself. But to protect these rare environments to keep the planet alive. The planet needs rainforests more than I need a vacation house. I think that an hectare of rainforest is probably way more important than 80% of individual people in the grand scheme of things. We people think we're way too important.

    Secondly, they do apparently use the local agencies and do have park rangers and such. I was worried about that too. Because it's no point owning a huge tract of the Amazon if it's going to get logged illegally.

    • Like 2

  5. Basically the WLT is a charity, that collects funds to purchase threatened land all over the world (collecting on behalf of the local management agency). Apparently it's only about $150 dollars to buy an acre of rainforest land. Is this a worthy charity?

    WLT Buy an Acre
    buy-an-acre-trees-btn.jpg

    World Land Trust (WLT) is saving threatened habitats acre by acre, creating protected nature reserves across the world. You can help us create new or extend existing reserves by buying acres and providing more safe havens for some of Earth's most vulnerable wildlife. Help us save real acres, in real places.

    Buy an Acre »

    Buy an Acre as a Gift »

    What is Buy an Acre?

    WLT works with partner organisations across the world to help fund land purchase and create nature reserves to protect threatened habitats and wildlife. In some countries, we can save an acre of threatened habitat for an average of £100. Here we offer our supporters the opportunity to buy acres and help us create or extend our reserves. You can donate as little £25 and buy quarter of an acre – helping us save the planet’s threatened wilderness.

    Where will your Buy an Acre donation go?

    Donations to Buy an Acre go to our in-country partners who purchase and secure rainforest and other wildlife habitats in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico. Your donation will help create permanently protected nature reserves.

    • £100 saves one acre (4,000 square metres)
    • £50 saves half an acre (2,000 square metres)
    • £25 save 1/4 an acre (1,000 square metres).
    Why donate to Buy an Acre?
    • Your donation will save real acres, in real places
    • It will turn threatened habitats into protected nature reserves
    • By saving acres, you will protect all the wildlife it contains



    http://www.worldlandtrust.org/projects/index

    • Like 1

  6. So sorry to hear about your loss myco. :(
    I hope you're doing alright and that you can feel safer again soon.

    Those absolute bastards. I think that as well as being careful about what we import - we need to remember that plants are safe when they are spread. Now is not the time to be precious with our rare plants, keeping them to ourselves - propagate and spread them if you want them to live.

    • Like 5

  7. Well when it's framed as - we change, or we change the environment - it seems a lot more obvious. Of course there's a neither option (I'm guessing that's what bogfrog would choose :P ). Humans need to get life to spread off of Earth too - we're possibly the only chance that Earthkind has to survive an eventual cosmic cataclysm (it's practically guaranteed), so we'll need to do something. I'm reading a rather kick-ass book called 'Crescent City Rhapsody' that deals with all of this - it's one of those horizon-expanding books. It gives perspective to a future that appears bleak. :)

    • Like 2

  8. This whole thing is very fishy. If I had cloned myself, I would devote one of them the task of unravelling the facts. Alas.

    speaking of trivia, did anyone else find it amusing that it took the media a couple of days to move from stating that Dzhokhar couldn't make a statement because of a neck wound that affected his speech to realising that in our modern age we do have means of communication other than speech. hint: i'm using one such now.


    I noticed this almost within an instant. Sometimes I just cannot understand statements like that. They're just so utterly stupid that it's hard to believe that they're intentional and honest. I think that one angle that is often unexplored is that much of what the media might report could be intentionally easy to debunk - such as that statement. If I'm not mistaken, it's a propaganda tactic - to release every kind of misinformation - not just your distilled, most potent lies.





  9. Good man - standing up for good decency. :)

    I know the feeling. There was a privately owned pond nearby - and it was catch and release for anglers. We used to go, but slowly noticed all the fish being taken... turns out some imported people had been catching the fish and stealing them to cook at home. The owner even put signs up in like 3 Asian languages - but it didn't matter. :|


  10. First one looks mostly Pachanoi (the way it sort of seems to have stopped producing spines it seems is a very common trait on Pachanoi, as well as the colour and shape of the plant and spines). The second one could very well be PC - the spines could be extra gnarly and it extra fat because it was grown in full-sun (explaining the pale color).

    I rooted a cutting that was a little over a metre long, and it's barely grown at all. I think it's literally spent almost 2 years now just growing roots. The pot is about 50L I think. Perhaps I put in a lot of blood and bone (lots of phosphorus) which sort of forced it to grow roots until it had lowered the phosphorus levels. I planted it about half a foot below the soil, and staked it in with a bamboo rod. I would recommend a fairly small pot, as I can tell my cutting didn't enjoy swimming in a super huge pot for ages (it couldn't control the moisture of the soil until it had much bigger roots). It didn't die, but sitting in moist soil didn't speed things along either. I've seen 1.6m plants that were rooted in 3-5L pots (I have a photo somewhere perhaps).


  11. Last time I was in LAX:

    Me: "Are you scanning my bag?"
    Seco: "Yeah."

    Me: "For things like drugs? Because you won't find any"

    <Seco gives me a savage look>
    Me: "I mean there's none to find." <_< >_> <_>



    • Like 3

  12. Watched an old Kiwi film called 'The Quiet Earth'. Basically there's one man left on earth, and then he finds a girl - and it's all good. Then there's another guy - and the girl picks this new guy (but still flirts with the first guy). And I just felt such strong empathetic jealousy and anger as that was happening. I mean what the fuck can you do about that? You got rejected, and there's no more girls left, and you have to watch and hang around like some kind of seedy hyaena looking for scraps - or you could wreck it all by killing the other guy, or you could try and run away and futilely attempt to thwart your omnipotent drive for love and affection. Fuck that, that would be beyond awful. :( That feeling is still lingering too. :(


  13. The rains have hit this last week, and the garden seems to be responding favourably. Sally has grown a couple of sets of leaves (after the damn cabbage caterpillars managed to find me again!!!! I thought I gave them the slip at my old house). With Nemisty, managed to get some purslane the other day. The sheep have attacked two trees I bought as well, so I've put them in the nursery corner to heal them up (hopefully both make it, although it'll be a tough recovery for the pineapple feijoa). My Caths are sprouting extra growing stems on every which node possible. Unbelievably, it seems they actually prefer to grow in torrential rain than the modest amount of water and hot days I've been giving them before. I leave them outside, and they've been loving it.

    That's about it. :)


  14. Checking this thread out after a few days... wow, it does seem that this isn't your run of the mill job.

    If it was a set-up - why on Earth would they choose an event with literally everyone taking photos? There's obviously zero evidence for us of Osama's death - but here there's more photos and video than you can shake a stick at. I don't think they're infallible geniuses - but I don't think they'd do such a job without knowing there would be an absolute horseload of photographic evidence. Maybe they didn't care. Speculation hurts my brain. :(

×