The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of an “ex-chemical company” like Monsanto is not rocket science. We only have to consider a few basic principles. Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows. The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known. This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science. Those that would create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of ’making’ or modifying of life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort.
Before the chemical companies like Monsanto became biotechnology companies they only dealt with chemicals that interacted with life processes. Repeatedly chemical companies like Monsanto produced new chemicals (thousands daily now) that they had no way of knowing what the full long term effects would be on living systems. They were released without sufficient study. I know this because the needed pre-release experiments would have involved the study of such long term high level multivariate interactions that it would have been impossible to do these experiments in principle (though some have theorized it was possible albeit too costly to perform such experiments in practice). In actual practice the environment itself was the testing ground, and the lawyers and the public relations propagandists delayed the inevitable lawsuits until a profit could be turned, a subsidiary company divested and the inevitable move to another product accomplished. This is the model set by Monsanto over its hundred year history. Just think asbestos, saccharin, PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange (dioxin), BGH, aspartame, fluoride, mercury, GMOs, monoculture, Nazis, nuclear waste & News Corporation when you consider Monsanto. You might add morgellons syndrome and mass bee death to that list, but that seems premature without more evidence. Yet the evidence mounts, for the bees, for the morgellons, and for the cover-up. In some real sense this all appears to be a final Solutia scenario for mankind and an awesome business plan.
Let us not forget the biggest piece to this warped pattern of corporate amorality, that of government contracts and mandates. The growth and cover of these corporate giants was through government contracts. Wars and rumors of war provide unlimited funding for research and development and also unlimited cover from equitable prosecution under sovereign immunity. They did it because the government asked them to do it and the government had to do it because they were at war. This is the real secret behind the congressional military industrial complex.
This brings us to yet another startling piece of the puzzle. When you are at war you also have the patriotic duty to work for less under less safe conditions and companies don’t have time to worry about the consequences of this to their workers, let alone the general population. Pollution standards can be lowered in the name of patriotism with the added benefit that your product can be freely marketed through government propaganda.
It is one thing when these companies are given a hand up by providing materials for war; it is yet another thing when these chemical products are changed to civilian uses, but retain the same standards and agreements as were used for the military at war. This was root of the old style fascism, and its more modern guise of corporatism.
It was bad enough when it was just harmful chemicals disbursed by Monsanto, now permanently lodged in every living thing on earth, that were the product of chemical reactions, but now they want to exponentiate the level of their catastrophic failure to the level of biological reactions. Monsanto wants you to believe that they are both competent and moral enough to patent life and license its product in combination with the same subsidiary chemicals that they released to the detriment of billions around the globe. If they couldn’t consider the interaction of molecules, in principle, then even the lowest forms of life must still be beyond their reach. When further understanding of epigenetics reveals subtle negative effects, none of the crop scientists will be able to hide behind ignorance, given the warnings of the clear and present danger. So they need hide the facts as long as possible and hope no own notices until they turn a profit. Can competition regulate such abuses? Like Spain during colonial exploration, if you can’t kill the natives, marry them. The model works so well everyone has copied it.
The truth of this will not be easy to harvest given that it is first mowed, then raked and then key Monsanto figures are baled and placed in the government barn later to be fed to the company herd and their seeds used to replant the Monsanto fields, all using huge lobbying machines. It makes me shudder to consider the human impact and the impact on higher order systems of this agro-political business growth model. Consider such a company having complete control over the world food supply, or having a monopoly on life itself. Also consider the faux science needed to convince people that GMOs are safe compared with Monsanto’s history of lies. God forbid that the next tool of war becomes food. Maybe war will become obsolete given that corporations can rape and pillage the world with impunity as they brainwash the remaining vestiges of the domesticated (mute) populis. Perhaps this is a bit overstated. I wouldn’t want anyone to dismiss this as just another conspiracy theory. Every aficionado of the subject knows that there is always just one conspiracy and everything ties into it. However, you might want to see how a real conspiracy theory against Monsanto would look by clicking here.
The only morality a corporation like Monsanto has is its profit. Death is the golden skeleton that is the cost of such companies doing business. Such is the nature of evil. I am not saying profit is evil, but those that profit from death are manifesting evil incarnate.
The linkage I make of biotech with medicine is no shallow metaphor. The ethical credo of these companies must have in it a ‘do no harm‘ provision. The researchers in these companies also must follow the tripartite role model of the physician as a clinician, public health expert and scientist. To date all we have seen is Doctor Josef Mengele when it comes to Monsanto and its ilk. The even scarier part of all this that they have formed their own triangle of trade by becoming Biotech companies by way of pharmaceutical companies. So they get to treat the very illnesses they have created, but no one is going to believe this until the myths of their pseudoscience are debunked.
The governments around the world are considering going after Monsanto based on antitrust laws. If this effort were real, then they would be going after companies like Monsanto under RICO-like statutes. By doing so they would not just be forcing them to APPEAR to break up the monopolies by divesting into interlocking directorates, but they would be empowered to place direct government oversight over the corporations continually engaging in illegal and immoral activity.
One of my readers of my original post on this subject had a point. I was painting with too broad a brush and I had no plan or alternative. I just have a hard time believing that any of the Chemical Companies were or are in any way moral. However, since I had only collected history on Monsanto, I rewrote this article as Monsanto specific. Yet, I don’t see them as the only creators of Frankenstein. They are just a major player.
Posted by productionengineer on January 5, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Now that you’ve defined the problem, two questions emerge: a)What do you propose be done from here forward? and b)What alternative would you have preferred in the past?
You posit that that “chemical companies” produced all sorts of new chemicals without sufficient study, since truly sufficient study would be impossible. Are you suggesting then that none of these developments should have been allowed in the first place? If so, where are you drawing the line between “chemical companies” and “manufacturing companies (non-chemical)”? No, the line is NOT obvious. Polytetrafluoroethylene, computer chips, Gatorade, Cheerios, sewage treatment – which is on the “good” or “bad” side of the line.
Have some companies performed unconscionably? I’d be a fool to deny that. Do blanket statements across all industries do much outside of the talk show circuit? Not really.
My issue here is mostly not that they do damage, the issue is that they lie about it, cover it up and set it up to do it again and again and again. Risk is essential, yes, otherwise we never get anywhere. The problem is that we need to be informed participants in the risk, not guinea pigs.
The other lesson here is that you can be too big. Once you are big enough to control governments, then governments instituted for, by and of the people must control you. There is little choice here. Either corporations submit to ethical control or we all remain slaves to the corporation.
As for the obvious solutions, well the dirty fucking hippies had it right all along. Small systems with self sustaining technology would work. This is exactly what the giant monopolies are fighting tooth and nail to debunk. Hopefully in the last forty years we have learned enough to not let the bastards grind us down this time. Illegitimi non carborundum or more correctly operor retineo non forensis liberi attero vos.
If you think these ideas are hyperbole and that their exists peer reviewed research that contradicts what I am saying, then you have not read the Bruce Stutz article on why such true peer reviewed research has yet to be done.
The Death Merchants
O Mundo Segundo a Monsanto #ogm #gmo