Monsanto?

[wideawake2015]

Thank you Hollow_Island. I'm glad I invested the time in writing if it adds something meaningful to the debate (although I suspect there will be a lot of hyper-sensitive knee-jerk reactions from some readers as the day progresses). But I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion with you and others. I hope we can clarify the Bono-Monsanto conspiracy soon!

[Hollow Island]

Criticism of economic orthodoxy does tend to get people riled up around here. Watch out!

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

John Pilger on Jeffrey Sachs (Bono's guru): "The Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs designed the "shock therapy" that the IMF and World Bank administered in Bolivia, adding another dimension of poverty and suffering."
Bolivia: a glimpse of freedom

how much do you know about John Pilger?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

Thank you Hollow_Island. I'm glad I invested the time in writing if it adds something meaningful to the debate (although I suspect there will be a lot of hyper-sensitive knee-jerk reactions from some readers as the day progresses). But I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion with you and others. I hope we can clarify the Bono-Monsanto conspiracy soon!

so you're looking for people to agree with you?

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Hollow Island

Criticism of economic orthodoxy does tend to get people riled up around here. Watch out!

I love a good discussion!

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so you're looking for people to agree with you?

No. Because sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong. I learn from discussion. I don't want people simply to agree with me. But I look forward to discussions with people who can make intelligent arguments, so I can learn more and challenge or validate my own viewpoints through discussion and exploration. I actually said, "I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion with you and others". "You" being someone who was likeminded; "and others" being people who may or may not be likeminded but who nonetheless can engage in interesting discussion which is mutually beneficial. Rather than discussion with those who make knee-jerk reactions and patronising insults etc. Being accused of writing the "stupidest" post on this forum is a mindless response. Let's discuss the issues in question and not behave like children. That’s all I was meaning.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so you're looking for people to agree with you?

Reply 2:
On the contrary. I have actually been hoping I missed the point and that someone can justify Bono's position convincingly, so I can listen to my favourite music of the past 3 decades without that dissatisfying sickening feeling in my stomach.

[Galeongirl]

I do not need to do research, as I am a scientist in the field of genetically modified vaccines. So I know how they work and I know what they do. And one of the biggest hurdles of GM vaccines is public acceptance, because they think GM is evil and yucky.... while they have no friggin' clue. So no, you are definitely the one in need for proper research, not me.


And on the tax issue you show you need more research as well.
Ireland has not collapsed, it was simply in crisis just as the rest of Europe. And U2 paying or not paying ONLY THEIR ROYALTY TAX would not have affected that in any way. They only moved their royalties. They still live in Ireland, pay living and income taxes, the U2 company is still in Ireland, they still pay taxes in Ireland.

Wake up.

It's not too late to get educated.

[BVS]

Wideawake, in reading that "article" it's still just innuendo and rumor. And I find this growing idea that U2 has to address every rumor very odd.

I haven't made any judgements regarding Monsanto, I've seen informed articles on both sides(and some very uninformed). I do believe there is some urban legend tied to Monsanto and they probably don't deserve the boogie man status they have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

I do not need to do research, as I am a scientist in the field of genetically modified vaccines. So I know how they work and I know what they do. And one of the biggest hurdles of GM vaccines is public acceptance, because they think GM is evil and yucky.... while they have no friggin' clue. So no, you are definitely the one in need for proper research, not me.

I REITERATE. My bone of contention with Monsanto primarily has NOTHING to do with the GM issue. Please re-read my comments, and those of at least two other people who commented. The GM debate is not all about the science or about levels of public acceptance of the science – it is also about the economics and the industry.

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

And on the tax issue you show you need more research as well.
Ireland has not collapsed, it was simply in crisis just as the rest of Europe. And U2 paying or not paying ONLY THEIR ROYALTY TAX would not have affected that in any way. They only moved their royalties. They still live in Ireland, pay living and income taxes, the U2 company is still in Ireland, they still pay taxes in Ireland.

Ireland has not collapsed? Er, I think you will find that the economy crashed, and it was bailed out, which perhaps creates the illusion that it has not collapsed. But, ask Irish tax payers facing austerity. Would it have been helpful for the country and would it have alleviated some of the problems of austerity if U2 had decided NOT to move some of their business elsewhere and had paid more tax in Ireland instead?

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Wake up.

It's not too late to get educated.

Thank you for the advice and for your educated insights. Pleasant chatting with you. I hope when I get educated my teachers are less patronising since I don't find that very conducive to learning.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by BVS

Wideawake, in reading that "article" it's still just innuendo and rumor. And I find this growing idea that U2 has to address every rumor very odd.

I haven't made any judgements regarding Monsanto, I've seen informed articles on both sides(and some very uninformed). I do believe there is some urban legend tied to Monsanto and they probably don't deserve the boogie man status they have.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Hi, yes, you could be right and I'll try to be open-minded about all this. However, I don't believe Monsanto can be assumed to be squeaky clean, either. Agent orange? Suicide seeds? Again, this is beyond the debate of whether or not GM is safe.

I suggest investigation of Jeffrey Sachs's attitudes to Monsanto as being a reasonable reliably proxy as to Bono's viewpoint. Nothing to do with GM science per se, but about business, economics, markets.

Edit: Reasonably reliable proxy!

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by BVS

I find this growing idea that U2 has to address every rumor very odd.

On second thoughts, I would like to add, it depends on the rumour. If it is about whether or not Adam had an affair with Larry's wife, then, no. It is not our business. But Bono talks about development issues at every opportunity. He has strong opinions on these issues. He makes the "business" of Africa our "business". He must have an opinion on Monsanto. Neil Young clearly has expressed his opinion as any self-professed "activist" or "artist with a conscience" perhaps should. Since there is so much opposition to Monsanto (for a variety of reasons), isn't it damaging to Bono's One Campaign etc. to stay silent on this controversy? Unless his viewpoint is controversial... ?

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

I do not need to do research, as I am a scientist in the field of genetically modified vaccines.

Doesn't sound like scientific / academic rigour to me

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

I REITERATE. My bone of contention with Monsanto primarily has NOTHING to do with the GM issue. Please re-read my comments, and those of at least two other people who commented. The GM debate is not all about the science or about levels of public acceptance of the science – it is also about the economics and the industry.




Ireland has not collapsed? Er, I think you will find that the economy crashed, and it was bailed out, which perhaps creates the illusion that it has not collapsed. But, ask Irish tax payers facing austerity. Would it have been helpful for the country and would it have alleviated some of the problems of austerity if U2 had decided NOT to move some of their business elsewhere and had paid more tax in Ireland instead?



Thank you for the advice and for your educated insights. Pleasant chatting with you. I hope when I get educated my teachers are less patronising since I don't find that very conducive to learning.

That's good then. I was just mentioning that and since you didn't seem to understand my first post I elaborated. While I have no issues with GM, I find several business decisions of Monsanto to be painful the least. But I don't believe the hype that they're completely evil, that has been blown way out of proportions.


And no, Ireland would have not had any difference with U2's tax. The country had a big problem, just like other European countries like Italy or Spain or Greece. Now Greece has collapsed. Ireland is on the way back up. U2's taxes would've been such an insignificant amount on the huge debt they had, it would not have made a difference. At all.

ANd for the patronising, isn't it ironic? Since this is exactly the wording you used in your first post.

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by wideawake2015

Doesn't sound like scientific / academic rigour to me

That's because I have just finished this part of research. I can link you when the paper gets accepted for publishing. But even scientists have jobs where they are supposed to do a research in a limited amount of time. So you do the research, then move on to the next. Has nothing to do with scientific rigour, has to do with getting bread on the table.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

That's good then. I was just mentioning that and since you didn't seem to understand my first post I elaborated. While I have no issues with GM, I find several business decisions of Monsanto to be painful the least. But I don't believe the hype that they're completely evil, that has been blown way out of proportions.

Thanks for clarification. I did understand your first comments, but they were not addressing my concerns, and you seemed to make an assumption about my concerns. However, that is understandable since I'm sure you receive a lot of flak for your research and that 99.999% of criticisms are about the safety of GM etc.

I would like to add that you only have to watch TV commercials in the USA about legal action against drug companies to know that scientific research is always limited. If science were ever 100% certain about everything, then science would be redundant, right? I trust that you know FAR FAR more than me about GM science, I think being sceptical is healthy. I once read an interview with a climate change scientist. The interviewer asked a question that typically pitched scientists against climate change sceptics. The scientist replied something like, "But we scientists are the biggest climate change sceptics and that's what we are so interested in doing research".

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

And no, Ireland would have not had any difference with U2's tax. The country had a big problem, just like other European countries like Italy or Spain or Greece. Now Greece has collapsed. Ireland is on the way back up. U2's taxes would've been such an insignificant amount on the huge debt they had, it would not have made a difference. At all.

I beg to differ. If it was worth moving that part of the business in order to pay less tax, then it is money, and worth something to the Irish economy. "Every little helps" as the supermarket commercial used to say! If Ireland is on the way up, then I'm sure tax has something to do with it. At least, that is a key message of austerity.

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

ANd for the patronising, isn't it ironic? Since this is exactly the wording you used in your first post.

I apologise, because my initial post was perhaps an emotional rant! However, the comments on getting educated were addressed singularly to Bono and not to the contributors of this forum. I simply believe that Bono is not educated on many of the issues he talks about. I really wish he WOULD go and take a degree in international development, but he seems to think he already knows all the issues and has all the answers. But it seems that when Bono is criticised, many U2 fans take it as personal criticism. This is unscientific and illogical. Reminds me more of a cult than a discussion on how best to save the world.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

That's because I have just finished this part of research. I can link you when the paper gets accepted for publishing. But even scientists have jobs where they are supposed to do a research in a limited amount of time. So you do the research, then move on to the next. Has nothing to do with scientific rigour, has to do with getting bread on the table.

Taken out of context, your comment suggested that scientists don't need to do research. But I knew that is not what you meant! I was being pedantic and / or facetious. However, it was intended to be friendly!

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

I can link you when the paper gets accepted for publishing..

Thank you. Please do.

[wideawake2015]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

I find several business decisions of Monsanto to be painful the least. But I don't believe the hype that they're completely evil, that has been blown way out of proportions.

I'm very interested to know how you come to this conclusion? How do you make this judgement? How can we measure the degree of being "evil" against the degree to which accusations have been blown out of proportion? According to my limited understanding, there are things called monopolies commissions which keep corporations in the realms of what are deemed acceptable proportions. Why do we have those mechanisms? Does Monsanto not have a monopoly on the US food market? How far does this monopoly reach across the globe? How far would Monsanto like its influence to reach? Has it responded to criticism by implementing better practice, or simply tried to counter criticism in PR campaigns? I think we need to address all these questions before we can judge that criticism is blown out of proportion. Otherwise it comes down to arguments such as "climate change is exaggerated".

[Galeongirl]

Because most things I've read against monsanto were not official documents or proper journalism. They were emotional irrational rants from random people on the internet, and everybody seems to copy off each other. That is what I mean with things blowing out of proportion.

I don't know much about Monsanto's business models, so I don't have a big opinion on it. But that does not mean I'll take anything what I hear on the internet about them for truth. I'm sceptical from both sides, but they're not necessarily evil until proven otherwise. I'm neutral until proven otherwise. Perhaps I know less of them because I'm not American, but it's really not much of a big deal in Europe.