Bill Gates GMO crop plan with Monsanto ( in all its glory )

[melon]

There's no link there. You've literally just chosen a link about bill gates and bilderberg and decided to somehow use it as a reposte?

If there is no link what is he doing there in the first place ,are you suggesting they invited him to go all the way there for just a few drinks ,or that Bilderberg group is not what others say it is and largely innocent of anything ? ( This was his 3rd consecutive year btw )

And if that is what you believe ( innocence ) then please explain why ( perhaps ) one of the most important meeting in the world is hidden and hushed away , and how ( given the status as world / business leaders ) they are not responsible for the mess where in ?

m

[nibbler]

If there is no link what is he doing there in the first place ,are you suggesting they invited him to go all the way there for just a few drinks ,or that Bilderberg group is not what others say it is and largely innocent of anything ? ( This was his 3rd consecutive year btw )

And if that is what you believe ( innocence ) then please explain why ( perhaps ) one of the most important meeting in the world is hidden and hushed away , and how ( given the status as world / business leaders ) they are not responsible for the mess where in ?

m

I was saying that there was no link to what you quoted me on.

I could not care less if a bunch of rich and influential people choose to have a meeting, what exactly do you think happens as a result? It shouldn't even be public knowledge that they have this meeting as its their own business. Am I to believe that they decide who gets to be the next president of the US or the next UK prime minister?

[scaryjim]

I guess what I'm saying is when Company Nice buys some Company Evil stocks, Company Nice can change the way Company Evil works, gently, behind the scenes. For instance low cost licenses for certain areas.

True enough, and a good point: it'd be nice to know if BG has voting rights at Monsanto and if so how he's used them. It's a two edged sword; yes you get the chance to make change, but at the same time you're investing your money in dubious activities. I guess the question is whether it's better to make subtle changes from inside the system or to oppose the system by supporting alternatives. And I don't think there's necessarily a right and wrong answer to that one!

EDIT:

It's not so much about the results, but rather the science. It means suddenly the technology exists and that can only be a good thing.

I don't think technology existing is inherently a good thing, tbh. It depends how that technology is used. Pretty much all technology is (to overuse a metaphor in one post!) a two-edged sword - it can be used for great benefit, or it can be used to support a corrupt regime/inflict suffering and destruction. What you generally get is a bit of both.

[melon]

But when you buy a lot of a firm, you get voting rights, you get the ability to help try and shift policy. The issue is that the company is bound by law to do its best to make a profit for its shareholders, this makes it tricky. But we don't know what kind of plans are going on behind the scenes, we have seen time and again the good which the gates foundation does so we can try and extrapolate their motives a bit.

I guess what I'm saying is when Company Nice buys some Company Evil stocks, Company Nice can change the way Company Evil works, gently, behind the scenes. For instance low cost licenses for certain areas.

If your suggesting BG has good intentions and trying to influence things from the inside then you raise an interesting point I suppose , but if that is the case then why is he adding to the existing problem of corruption by by contributing to Obamas superpac ?

Why doesnt he just create his own transparent ( accountable ) superpac that reflects these supposed good intentions and those who support him , rather than allowing the wolves through his door and into his living room ?

m

[Willzzz]

Hmmm is Obama evil too now?

[melon]

Hmmm is Obama evil too now?

Obamas party is just the other side of the same coin , much like the same situation here in the UK.

m

[Willzzz]

Is there no one in this world we can trust?

[Terbinator]

If your suggesting BG has good intentions and trying to influence things from the inside then you raise an interesting point I suppose , but if that is the case then why is he adding to the existing problem of corruption by by contributing to Obamas superpac ?

Why doesnt he just create his own transparent ( accountable ) superpac that reflects these supposed good intentions and those who support him , rather than allowing the wolves through his door and into his living room ?

m

Unless I'm missing something that article suggest BG has only donated $70k to be split between the two official groups mentioned - not millions, not to a number of different PACs.

Taking the above, I'm not sure how BG is "adding to the problem of corruption" or what it has to do with anything, really. Yes, the way the US Politics works isn't ideal but creating his own PAC with specific intention is possibly more "corrupt" given the amount of financial clout he has to push one agenda rather than supporting Obama/DNC's as a whole.

Swings and roundabouts.

Of course, the best thing BG could do is offer some reliable mice for the researchers to test with - probably the most cost effective too.

[melon]

Is there no one in this world we can trust?

heh , you want an honest answer ?

m

[nibbler]

True enough, and a good point: it'd be nice to know if BG has voting rights at Monsanto and if so how he's used them. It's a two edged sword; yes you get the chance to make change, but at the same time you're investing your money in dubious activities. I guess the question is whether it's better to make subtle changes from inside the system or to oppose the system by supporting alternatives. And I don't think there's necessarily a right and wrong answer to that one!

EDIT:


I don't think technology existing is inherently a good thing, tbh. It depends how that technology is used. Pretty much all technology is (to overuse a metaphor in one post!) a two-edged sword - it can be used for great benefit, or it can be used to support a corrupt regime/inflict suffering and destruction. What you generally get is a bit of both.

Fair enough, what I mean in this case is something like a cure for malaria. To my mind, when all's said and done it can only be a good thing that it exists in some form.

[melon]

Unless I'm missing something that article suggest BG has only donated $70k to be split between the two official groups mentioned - not millions, not to a number of different PACs.

Taking the above, I'm not sure how BG is "adding to the problem of corruption" or what it has to do with anything, really. Yes, the way the US Politics works isn't ideal but creating his own PAC with specific intention is possibly more "corrupt" given the amount of financial clout he has to push one agenda rather than supporting Obama/DNC's as a whole.

Swings and roundabouts.

Of course, the best thing BG could do is offer some reliable mice for the researchers to test with - probably the most cost effective too.

The rats would be a start , but given he has stake in the outcome it would be hard to know how reliable his sources were .

I dont see why the French would fix the testing ( what do they have to gain financially from it ? ) so I would sooner trust an outside entity than anyone affiliated with Monsanto , do you honestly expect them to screw themselves ?

And what about the backlash that would bring ,and witch hunt ?

So I dont think so

m

[Willzzz]

I'm not sure it's a case of the French fixing the testing.

It sounds more like it's other groups taking their results out of context.

[Terbinator]

The rats would be a start , but given he has stake in the outcome it would be hard to know how reliable his sources were .

I dont see why the French would fix the testing ( what do they have to gain financially from it ? ) so I would sooner trust an outside entity than anyone affiliated with Monsanto , do you honestly expect them to screw themselves ?

And what about the backlash that would bring ,and witch hunt ?

So I dont think so

m

Well it hasn't brought a backlash - just more questions. The mice were known to be susceptible to tumours as it is - why bother using them? The results are skewed at best.

[melon]

I'm not sure it's a case of the French fixing the testing.

It sounds more like it's other groups taking their results out of context.

Maybe , politics is a dirty game played by both sides , and how many times has that been done already by the " other side " in favor of suspect agendas like the war in Iraq / WOMD ?

m

[melon]

Well it hasn't brought a backlash - just more questions. The mice were known to be susceptible to tumours as it is - why bother using them? The results are skewed at best.

Is that official though ?

m

[melon]

Well it hasn't brought a backlash - just more questions. The mice were known to be susceptible to tumours as it is - why bother using them? The results are skewed at best.

I meant potentially if it was found to be true.

m