Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Monsanto’s Superweeds Saga Is Only Getting Worse
Source:
Yahoo
URL Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/monsanto ... y-getting-worse-000354904.html
Published: Aug 2, 2016
Author: Yahoo
Post Date: 2016-08-03 11:06:55 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14240
Comments: 51
You’d like to think there are certain types of corporate malfeasance that really only exist in the realm of Hollywood fantasy. For example, the soulless biotech company that, through a combination of shortsighted greed and scientific hubris, decides to play God with Mother Nature—only to unleash a host of unintended consequences, which said company then refuses to acknowledge and instead continues to pursue its reckless technology to devastating ends. Sounds like the plotline of dozens upon dozens of dystopian sci-fi flicks, right? Or maybe it’s just the ongoing saga of Monsanto and the superweeds. Yes, the story has taken far longer to unfold than any feature film, but still, your average teen who’s taken a semester of biological sciences would get the gist in a flash: A generation ago, Monsanto rolled out its patented line of genetically engineered crops that, in a (diabolical?) bit of corporate synergy, were designed to survive being doused with the company’s trademark weed killer Roundup, made with the herbicide glyphosate. Monsanto billed its “crop system”—the “Roundup Ready” GMO seeds combined with Roundup itself—as a revolutionary boon for farmers: higher yields with fewer chemicals. Yep, fewer chemicals. It’s worth remembering today, when the use of glyphosate has soared by more than tenfold in the past decade, that the original bill of goods Monsanto sold to farmers centered on the argument that because Roundup Ready seeds could withstand glyphosate, farmers wouldn’t have to use as much of the chemical to kill all those nuisance weeds. That’s not exactly what happened, as we’re reminded once again by the latest Monsanto-related headlines this week. As NPR reports, a scourge of superweeds that have become resistant to glyphosate is plaguing soybean farmers in parts of Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri. They’re not alone. This graph from the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds shows how the number of unique cases of herbicide resistance in weeds in the U.S. shoots off like a rocket in the years following Monsanto’s introduction of Roundup Ready GMO seed in the mid-1990s. Monsanto’s own solution to this escalating problem would seem as laughably predictable as a bad Hollywood sequel if it weren’t all too real: Let’s roll out more GMO crops designed to withstand being doused with even more weed killer. Monsanto calls its next-generation line of GMO soybeans “Xtend,” and these are capable of not only surviving heavy applications of glyphosate but an older, more potent herbicide known as dicamba. Federal regulators have yet to approve the new dicamba-based weed killer Monsanto formulated to pair with its dicamba-resistant GMO soybeans. But that apparently hasn’t stopped some desperate farmers from spraying dicamba anyway. And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields, Monsanto’s new GMO crops aren’t only upending the natural order, they appear to being upending the social order in tight-knit farming communities too: Neighbors are accusing neighbors of illegally spraying dicamba and killing off crops that haven’t been engineered to tolerate the chemical. Dozens and dozens of complaints have been filed in Missouri and in Arkansas, but that may only be the beginning in the next chapter of the Monsanto saga. If the company’s new herbicide wins federal approval and certain farmers start spraying it, surrounding farmers might have no choice but to plant Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant GMO crops too—or risk their own crops dying from herbicide drift. As one crop scientist at the University of Arkansas tells NPR: “[These farmers are] afraid they’re not going to be able to grow what they want to grow. They’re afraid that they’re going to be forced to go with that technology.” That is, of course, until the next generation of superweeds develops its own resistance.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Just as drugs -- legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states.
Has meth being illegal kept it from gutting the American heartland? Stupid is as stupid does.
So, evidently having all those Monocultured eggs in one Monsanto basket wasn't such a good idea. Duh.
Imagine if it were legal.
Free Darwin Award with every purchase.... Biotches!
It is legal in Mexico. They make it there and ship it here. Large pharmaceutical companies are making the ephedrine, and pseudo-ephedrine, along with the other chemicals to make meth. They absolutely KNOW what the chemicals are being used for and are profiting mightily by the sale of the ingredients to border towns in Mexico and other places. If the US wanted to shut this stuff down, they could make a helluva dent in production. The fact is, politicians, the CIA, the DEA, and local police make a good retirement with poisoning people.
Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
False. Possession of small amounts of meth for personal use has been decriminalized.
In Mexico you are talking about correct? I didn't know anyone had gone that far. I can understand and tolerate usage of "mothers little helpers" and little pick me ups. When someone goes from eating a pill to smoking their chemicals, or injection..... I don't know the answer. Knocking down the social net that enables people to live long lives while addicted comes to mind. Let people kill themselves, or straighten up and thrive, it is the only way IMO. There is nothing wrong with charity, and charitable organizations that offer treatment and jobs. With the governments "help" comes a lifetime leash and a section 8 dog house.
Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.
Just as drugs -- legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states. Still denying the existence of human volition? Weird. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Quite the contrary. I'm acknowledging it. And I'm saying that, as a society, we decide how we will live and what behavior is unacceptable. "Every society has a has has a has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
Quite the contrary. I'm acknowledging it. By likening the drift of chemicals under the action of wind and diffusion with the movement of drugs under human volition, you do the opposite. Yet three years later he wrote: "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." (to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819) A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. What do you mean "yet"? Do you see a contradiction?
There is certainly a contradiction between extending "the fundamental principles of its association" to include a drug ban, on one hand, and "unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" on the other hand. Now, since Jefferson made the statement you quote in the context of opposing placing on the entire citizenry the burden of protecting the international trade of the few (lcw eb2.loc.gov/service/ms...j1/049/049_0227_0230.pdf) he may well have contemplated no such extension as you make. In that case, cheers for Jefferson and jeers for your misapplication of his words. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Two ways of saying the same thing -- an individual has rights, but others have equal rights. A society is created to set limits.
I have no "right" to anybody else's sobriety - that's a fictitious "right" like the "right" to health care. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. That's an odd way to phrase it. People in a society have the right to set the rules by which they all agree to live. If those rules are offensive to you, then go live the way you want above the tree line.
If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The Muslim society thinks so.
The Muslim society thinks so. Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Correct? It's their society and their country. They read the Koran, not the Bible.
The Muslim society thinks so. "Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?" Correct? It's their society and their country. Which doesn't imply they're correct in thinking it's their right to say no publishing or reading the Bible - so you haven't answered the question. And you didn't even pretend to answer, "Would Jefferson agree?" If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. It's their society. They make the rules. "Correct" has nothing to do with it. And you didn't even pretend to answer, "Would Jefferson agree?" It's none of his business. "If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it." You mentioned drugs. Our society says some drugs are legal, some are legal with a prescription, and some are illegal. Those are the limits. It's disingenuous to focus on just the illegal drugs and conclude that society is obliterating the actions of the individual.
So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist? Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Pot, meet kettle. "Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts." Society consists of like-minded individuals who decide what they will ban and what they won't. If you don't like it, Jeremiah, you can leave.
Pot, meet kettle. Not at all - I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others." You hold that when a Muslim society bans the Bible, '"Correct" has nothing to do with it.' Bans that are more restrictive than what is required to defend the rights of others are tyranny - specifically, "tyranny of the majority" (as characterized by John Adams, A Defense Of The Constitutions Of Government Of The United States Of America). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Well then, we agree.
Yep. You're wrongly applying the principles of our society to theirs and making judgements of "correct" or "incorrect" based on them.
You're a moral relativist - I'm not. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Well then, we agree. No equal right is defended by a drug ban. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. More precisely, a normative relativist. Plus, I don't believe that banning bibles in an Islamic society has anything to do with morality.
I believe the Word of God has everything to do with morality. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So the rights of dopers, addicts and tweakers supercede my right to live my life and raise my children in a drug free environment?
Yes it does. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?
If your "environment" includes the interiors of retail establishments, smoke clubs, and private residences, then you have no such "right" - any more than leftist whiners have a "right" to free health care. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. We're talking about the Bible, which is the Word of God. Forcibly keeping anyone from the Word of God is plainly immoral. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Sorry, the followers of the Koran don't see it that way. And why would you expect them to?
Sorry, the followers of the Koran don't see it that way. They're wrong. Straw man - I don't. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. They think you're wrong.
They're wrong about that too.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Now you sound like tpaine.
Comments (41 - 51) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields"
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
farmers in Arkansas may be forced to take a different approach to managing weeds, probably by growing different crops. Instead of soybeans, farmers may grow more sorghum, rice or other crops.
#4. To: VxH (#3)
"Has meth being illegal kept it from gutting the American heartland?"
#5. To: misterwhite (#4)
Imagine if it were legal.
#6. To: misterwhite (#4)
#7. To: jeremiad (#6)
"It is legal in Mexico."
#8. To: misterwhite (#7)
#9. To: misterwhite (#1)
"And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields"
#10. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
"Still denying the existence of human volition?"
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.
#11. To: misterwhite (#10)
Still denying the existence of human volition?"
And I'm saying that, as a society, we decide how we will live and what behavior is unacceptable.
"Every society has a has has a has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.
#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#11)
"Yet three years later he wrote:"
#13. To: misterwhite (#12)
Do you see a contradiction?
#14. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
"There is certainly a contradiction between extending "the fundamental principles of its association" to include a drug ban, on one hand, and "unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" on the other hand."
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
an individual has rights, but others have equal rights.
#16. To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
"I have no "right" to anybody else's sobriety ..."
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
People in a society have the right to set the rules by which they all agree to live.
#18. To: ConservingFreedom (#17)
"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"
#19. To: misterwhite (#18)
"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"
#20. To: ConservingFreedom (#19)
"Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?"
#21. To: misterwhite (#20)
"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"
#22. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
"Which doesn't imply they're correct in thinking it's their right to say no publishing or reading the Bible - so you haven't answered the question"
#23. To: misterwhite (#22)
"Correct" has nothing to do with it.
'If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it.'
You mentioned drugs. Our society says some drugs are legal, some are legal with a prescription, and some are illegal. Those are the limits.
It's disingenuous to focus on just the illegal drugs and conclude that society is obliterating the actions of the individual.
#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#23)
"So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?"
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
"So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?"
"Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts."
Society consists of like-minded individuals who decide what they will ban and what they won't.
#26. To: ConservingFreedom (#25)
"I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."
#27. To: ConservingFreedom (#25)
"You hold that when a Muslim society bans the Bible, '"Correct" has nothing to do with it.'
#28. To: misterwhite (#27)
You're wrongly applying the principles of our society to theirs
#29. To: misterwhite (#26)
'I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."'
#30. To: ConservingFreedom (#28)
"You're a moral relativist - I'm not."
#31. To: misterwhite (#30)
I don't believe that banning bibles in an Islamic society has anything to do with morality.
#32. To: ConservingFreedom (#29)
"No equal right is defended by a drug ban."
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
"I believe the Word of God has everything to do with morality."
#34. To: misterwhite (#32)
my right to live my life and raise my children in a drug free environment?
#35. To: misterwhite (#33)
that's not what we're talking about, is it?
#36. To: ConservingFreedom (#35)
"We're talking about the Bible, which is the Word of God. Forcibly keeping anyone from the Word of God is plainly immoral."
#37. To: misterwhite (#36)
"We're talking about the Bible, which is the Word of God. Forcibly keeping anyone from the Word of God is plainly immoral."
And why would you expect them to?
#38. To: ConservingFreedom (#37)
"Sorry, the followers of the Koran don't see it that way."
"They're wrong."
#39. To: misterwhite (#38)
#40. To: ConservingFreedom (#39)
"They're wrong about that too."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]