I didn't think that at all. I know you do breeding.
>My point was that privatization of cultivar development is ethical, as
>ethical as, say, manufacturing refrigerators, or farming your own land.
Dog breeders all do breeding, but the results go back to the public
pool and they don't claim monopoly rights over a breed. THAT is
ethical. Ordinary farmers do plant breeding too. And the results also
go back to the public pool. THAT is ethical.
>Sure, go ahead. You have complete freedom to do that, and it is in no way
>impeded by private plant breeding.
In the Philippines, seed companies and the government collude to
impose hybrid seeds on farmers. Farmers can't get government loans and
other support if they don't use seeds "certified" by the government.
And guess whose seeds are certified? Pioneer's, Cargill's etc. THAT is
In the U.S., the government does a lot of research using public funds.
So do universities. The results should go back to the public pool. But
guess who gets the results? (Example: the terminator technology).
Private companies, who simply buy the patents. THAT is unethical.
There should be limits to privatization, which is basically corporate
ownership of public goods. Like the WTO (remember Seattle?), we should
draw a line somewhere, beyond which it can't be allowed.
I suggest two areas where the line against privatization should be
drawn: 1) knowledge, and 2) life.
In the Biblical sermon on the mount, Jesus started with a few loaves
of bread and pieces of fish and fed five thousand families, ending up
with more than he started with. That miracle continues, everytime
knowledge is shared or a seed grows and bears fruit.
Knowledge and seeds are meant to be shared.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: