Monsanto's newest tactic must be stopped now

[Niri Te]

Originally Posted by Fighter-of-Wars

This is true, but buying hybrid seed every year pays for itself with the increased resistance to disease, drought, and pests. As well as increased yields. But for someone in your situation hybrid seed is not needed. But I don't see how hybrid seed hurts you. You don't have to use it.

Fair Question, here is what scares the begeebers out of all of us "Back to the land" family subsistence farmers. With all the "Special protections" that Monsanto is working through Congress, it wouldn't be that be that big of a leap, to see Monsanto putting all the other "Heritage seed" company's out of business, forcing everyone to buy seed from them. THAT is what we don't like. For those of us who have our little farms, and large gardens, (we want to grow ours to two acres), in place, and operating, we CAN (and WILL) "produce" our own seed by letting a certain percentage of each year's crop GO to seed. For someone just starting out on this wonderful journey in five or ten years, it might be VERY tough for them to even start. Do you see our fears now?
Niri Te

[Fighter-of-Wars]

But that's just the thing, little seed company's will always be around that have unaltered seed. There will be people out here jus like you that will want to have the seed and will make that their living, to just raise and sell unaltered seed.

[Niri Te]

Originally Posted by Fighter-of-Wars

But that's just the thing, little seed company's will always be around that have unaltered seed. There will be people out here jus like you that will want to have the seed and will make that their living, to just raise and sell unaltered seed.

I was afraid that it would be like the little "mom and pop" stores, and the WallMarts started showing up, putting them out of business. You are right about the one thing though, unlike the Wallmart scenario, it wouldn't be about the price, WE would want the unaltered seeds, and Monsanto would not offer that.
Niri Te

[Human No More]

Then people are voting with their wallets. They are choosing convenient and still safe despite propaganda over expensive. You're going on as if successful businesses are setting fire to others rather than simply appealing more to consumers.

[Clarke]

Voting with your wallet works only in very limited circumstances, and so the argument, "The consumers disagree, so you're wrong" isn't very good logically. It assumes the consumers are perfectly informed and aware of their own interests, which is far from the case.

[Human No More]

...yet they are. Their interests are such that convenience and not being priced out of buying food are important to them, and if they are in superstitious fear of anything different, it's a secondary concern at best.

Since people are never going to act to get population down in time, they need to make efficient use of what is available right now without having to cut down an entire rainforest for low-yield subsistence farming when existing land used and managed properly can do the same job.