There used to be a show on public television in which a guy would talk about the history of technology and the effect it had on political history. For example, the British defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt because they figured out a way to build a better bow and arrow.
History moves in cycles and sometimes a new idea in technology returns us to an older political context. Genetic engineering, for example. The Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri is pushing very hard to have the market accept its host of genetically-altered products. We already know a) these crops are a technological breakthrough and b) an environmental nightmare – but what mutant seed do they carry for our political environment?
The attraction of genetically-altered crops – let’s use soybeans as an example – is increased yields. Jump in bed with the mad scientists and you get more beans per acre. More beans per acre means a lower price per bushel and soon you have farmers lining up to use mutant soybeans whether they want to or not. It becomes a matter of survival. Sign the devil’s contract or get crushed by those who do.
Let’s take a look at that contract. According to the 1996 contract for genetically-altered Monsanto soybeans, the farmer may not keep any of his harvest for the purpose of planting next year’s crop. The farmer cannot give away or sell any of the seeds he has purchased. The farmer owns the seeds, but Monsanto retains control. Under the terms of the contract, if the farmer keeps, sells or gives away any of the seeds he has already purchased, he has to pay Monsanto $500 for each bean. The contract gives Monsanto the right to come onto the farmer’s property and inspect all soybean fields for three years. The farmer buys the seed for one year, Monsanto has the right to conduct raids for three. Not only that, but if the farmer is going to use an herbicide, it has to be – you guessed it – a Monsanto herbicide.
Through two centuries of American history, there has been no better witness to the benefits of democracy than the farmer. If a farmer, back to the wall and nowhere to go, signs this contract or one like it, he loses a good deal of his liberty in the bargain. The farmer loses the power to make decisions about his crop. Monsanto decides how the crop will be grown and how it will be sold. Monsanto has the right to come onto his property and fine him if he is not growing his crop to their specifications. If there is a drought or a flood, the loss is the farmer’s. The benefits flow to the Monsanto Corporation and the risks flow to the individual farmer.
There are names for this type of enterprise: serfdom, indentured servitude. In Ireland, in the 1840s, farmers enjoyed bonus crops of wheat, rye and barley. But tenant farmers and their families starved beside those fields because their crop – potatoes – was blighted. The grain belonged to the landlord. In our own history, sharecropping farmers were treated with a brutality that was a vestige of the plantation system.
Any way you look at it, genetic engineering is a dangerous and stupid idea. That it is undemocratic as well hardly comes as a surprise.
Serf City, Here We Come
There used to be a show on public television in which a guy would talk about the history of technology and the effect it had on political history. For example, the British defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt because they figured out a way to build a better bow and arrow.
History moves in cycles and sometimes a new idea in technology returns us to an older political context. Genetic engineering, for example. The Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri is pushing very hard to have the market accept its host of genetically-altered products. We already know a) these crops are a technological breakthrough and b) an environmental nightmare – but what mutant seed do they carry for our political environment?
The attraction of genetically-altered crops – let’s use soybeans as an example – is increased yields. Jump in bed with the mad scientists and you get more beans per acre. More beans per acre means a lower price per bushel and soon you have farmers lining up to use mutant soybeans whether they want to or not. It becomes a matter of survival. Sign the devil’s contract or get crushed by those who do.
Let’s take a look at that contract. According to the 1996 contract for genetically-altered Monsanto soybeans, the farmer may not keep any of his harvest for the purpose of planting next year’s crop. The farmer cannot give away or sell any of the seeds he has purchased. The farmer owns the seeds, but Monsanto retains control. Under the terms of the contract, if the farmer keeps, sells or gives away any of the seeds he has already purchased, he has to pay Monsanto $500 for each bean. The contract gives Monsanto the right to come onto the farmer’s property and inspect all soybean fields for three years. The farmer buys the seed for one year, Monsanto has the right to conduct raids for three. Not only that, but if the farmer is going to use an herbicide, it has to be – you guessed it – a Monsanto herbicide.
Through two centuries of American history, there has been no better witness to the benefits of democracy than the farmer. If a farmer, back to the wall and nowhere to go, signs this contract or one like it, he loses a good deal of his liberty in the bargain. The farmer loses the power to make decisions about his crop. Monsanto decides how the crop will be grown and how it will be sold. Monsanto has the right to come onto his property and fine him if he is not growing his crop to their specifications. If there is a drought or a flood, the loss is the farmer’s. The benefits flow to the Monsanto Corporation and the risks flow to the individual farmer.
There are names for this type of enterprise: serfdom, indentured servitude. In Ireland, in the 1840s, farmers enjoyed bonus crops of wheat, rye and barley. But tenant farmers and their families starved beside those fields because their crop – potatoes – was blighted. The grain belonged to the landlord. In our own history, sharecropping farmers were treated with a brutality that was a vestige of the plantation system.
Any way you look at it, genetic engineering is a dangerous and stupid idea. That it is undemocratic as well hardly comes as a surprise.