I didn’t downvote it personally, but I can see why someone would. It’s a silly, emotional appeal that has nothing to do with whether the technology is good or bad.
If Kim Kong Il is concerned about getting cancer so funds cancer research and they develop some kind of cure, does that mean it’s bad? “Funded by Kim Jong Il? Hell no! I’m opposed to this treatment being used!”
It’s not surprising that a company like Monsanto would be involved in technologies that are trying to improve crop yields/resilience. It’s their area of business. That doesn’t mean a specific technology is bad or should be avoided. They’re also not actively trying to do evil stuff just to be evil. If there was some technology that was overall super great for everyone and they could make more money with that then some harmful technology then they’d be using it.
In my world, there is no room for benefit of the doubt when it comes to Bayer/Monsanto. They’ve proven time and time again that their products can’t be trusted and that they don’t care about poisoning people, extracting money from the poorest farmers by forcing them to buy their patented seeds.
In my world, there is no room for benefit of the doubt when it comes to Bayer/Monsanto.
What I’m talking about has nothing to do with trusting those companies or giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess my point boils down to: if they touch something, it isn’t automatically bad and harmful.
Monsanto probably advises irrigating crops with water. Does that mean water is bad and we should switch to Brawndo?
I didn’t downvote it personally, but I can see why someone would. It’s a silly, emotional appeal that has nothing to do with whether the technology is good or bad.
If Kim Kong Il is concerned about getting cancer so funds cancer research and they develop some kind of cure, does that mean it’s bad? “Funded by Kim Jong Il? Hell no! I’m opposed to this treatment being used!”
It’s not surprising that a company like Monsanto would be involved in technologies that are trying to improve crop yields/resilience. It’s their area of business. That doesn’t mean a specific technology is bad or should be avoided. They’re also not actively trying to do evil stuff just to be evil. If there was some technology that was overall super great for everyone and they could make more money with that then some harmful technology then they’d be using it.
In my world, there is no room for benefit of the doubt when it comes to Bayer/Monsanto. They’ve proven time and time again that their products can’t be trusted and that they don’t care about poisoning people, extracting money from the poorest farmers by forcing them to buy their patented seeds.
What I’m talking about has nothing to do with trusting those companies or giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess my point boils down to: if they touch something, it isn’t automatically bad and harmful.
Monsanto probably advises irrigating crops with water. Does that mean water is bad and we should switch to Brawndo?