Do you buy any food at all that is not grown by local organic farmers? If you do, chances are you have a much stronger business relationship with Monsanto than Paul Graham does.
After all, you are directly giving money to a supermarket, which is giving it to a big agribusiness, which either is Monsanto or is a customer of Monsanto. All these evil things that Monsanto does? They're done with your money.
Contrast that with Paul Graham, who is a partial owner of an investment firm, which invested in a company, which has Monsanto as a customer. No YCombinator money is going to Monsanto. Indeed, it's the other way around: Monsanto money is going to a YCombinator company, in exchange for services. PG's criticism of the original comment was right on.
If Monsanto's business practices bother you, factor that into your purchasing decisions. There are dozens of local organic farmers that would love to have your business. They usually charge more, because evil is efficient. Monsanto is not the only beneficiary of their evil ways, though: because of their evilness, millions of Americans spend less on food than they otherwise would.
this "voting with your dollars" thing is a bunch of bullshit. It's virtually impossible to live in modern society, engaging in commerce with any number of vendors that are invariably linked to multinational companies which are themselves highly interlinked, without money going to many companies we'd prefer it didn't, any more than it's feasible to live in a town governed by a government you vehemently disagree with, without using the roads they happen to be paving. Monsanto's practices should be regulated, those regulations enacted by a government which we elect with actual votes, not dollars; end of story.
edit: my wife and I do in fact work at a local food coop and buy about 90% organic or at least locally grown; they sell a few products linked to companies like Monsanto but these are clearly labeled with things like "GMO" - we certainly don't go near them. But we're lucky enough to live in a place that actually has a non-profit food coop and the economic freedom to have the time to work in such a place.
"This 'voting with your dollars' thing is a bunch of bullshit."
It's not all or nothing. If everyone would just subscribe to a CSA and buy the rest of their stuff from the grocery store then that alone would completely shift the face of food production in this country.
Yes, everyone subscribing to a CSA would shift the face of food production in the country, by instantly jacking up the price of food for everyone, drastically reducing the efficiency of the food supply system (local farms being for many obvious reasons far less efficient), plunging whole regions of the company into seasonal food "droughts" (as Northern families throw away bushels of beets and sweet potatoes and go to McDonalds instead), and increasing energy consumption.
I'm a CSA-eating locavore; I buy my protein from a whole-animal butcher who's on a first-name basis with the farmers who raise all his products.
It is a spectacular luxury, one I'm actually faintly guilty about.
Agreed. Yes, consumers taking down Monsanto would be a rather large task, but that doesn't mean you can't do your best to support the other players (particularly those that might better fit your ethical framework). Money does very much talk in the U.S. (note how our political system works--donors and lobbyists)--it's just a matter of having enough of it (or, in the case of Monsanto, taking it away) to make a difference.
Not everyone has access to a CSA, and that's okay, too--you can still find ways to get at least some of your food that isn't a product of Big Ag.
I think it is also difficult to remember all the victories of "voting with your money" because so many have been normalised. Hormones in meat? Dolphin-killing tuna fishing? Formula better than breast advertising? There are myriad examples where a minority voted with their dollars and shifted corporate practice.
Are you old enough to remember supermarkets with no organic/free-range products? No recycled products? No vegetarian versions of products? These are all things commonly available now that have been introduced in my lifetime as a supermarket shopper.
Yes, it sure would be better if the consumer did not have to fight evil with every purchasing decision (it leads to decision fatigue, if nothing else). It would be better if representational democracy (especially in the US) worked better at looking after collective interests. But voting with your money? It does work, and I would be surprised if the Internet has not amplified its effect even further.
The cynic in me says, however, that much of the organic/free range food in supermarkets isn't what I consider organic/free range. Thanks to the lobbying of Big Ag, labeling claims for food don't necessarily match our own definitions.
That said, I'm not suggesting we stop--we just need to become better educated.
"This 'voting with your dollars' thing is a bunch of bullshit."
At the risk of sounding overly stereotypical, the Jewish community seems to be pretty good at it, and they have built a very good community of support for themselves. Heck, I know people who still wont let anyone in their family buy German cars.
Yes, but a vote is a vote. Why people vote the way they do is irrelevant. Certainly, it's hard to get people to count business ethics as an economic factor, but clearly some do. My supermarket is full of products touting themselves as cruelty-free, or additive-free etc., and the number only seems to be growing. It's a slow process, but nowadays sustainability counts for a lot more with consumers than it used to do.
> It's virtually impossible to live in modern society
If you truly consider those "multinational companies" to be so unethical and dastardly, then don't. Live outside of modern society. Many people do. You do not.
> how is this different from a simple proposal that dissenters simply leave society ?
It isn't. If enough people leave, the old society disappears and a new one forms. If not enough people leave, then the people who left were morons and suffer for it. As simple as that.
The funny part is, everybody knows the above. It's a part of human nature. It's how new societies form and old ones disappear.
Any free trade involves an increase in value on both sides by definition. Cloudant takes the money and provides something that Monsanto values more than that money. If they didn't get that then they wouldn't be buying.
-I suppose as someone that gets the majority of my food from a local CSA, the farmer's market and a food co-op, I'm allowed to challenge your point in your reckoning. But I very fortunately live in a community where such alternatives are an option. The expense or total lack of viable alternatives to food produced by big agribusiness isn't the result of an unadulterated free market, it's in large part because of policy lobbying from these businesses for massive subsidies and anti-competitive intellectual property laws and enforcement (e.g. successfully suing farmers whose non-GMO plants were cross-pollinated by Monsanto varieties from neighboring farms). You can't use "take your business elsewhere" free-market logic when the company in question has systematically choked off competition so that there are no alternatives. You're right, what Monsanto does is with my money, in the sense that way too many of my tax dollars go to the company.
-"Evil is efficient" is a lazy and indefensible excuse for bad behavior. Green business has successfully shown that, actually, "good" can be more efficient, especially if you take a long-term view of your business.
-While I would find doing business with Monsanto personally distasteful, what Cloudant does with Monsanto is, I guess, Cloudant's business. However, trumpeting the fact in a press release makes a statement about the company's values at a level that invites public scrutiny. You can't put out a press release and then cry about the blowback you get from it.
-Finally, I think there's a larger point to be made here about the hustle that founding a startup requires and the temptations you face when things aren't going well and you're facing a quickly disappearing runway. Maybe things are moving too fast for you to really think about what you're doing but remember that the day you stop making decisions that you believe in for the sake of external pressure, your vision starts to slip away from you.
This post being at the top worries me more than the post PG replied to :-/
1. You seem to think that consuming a GMO is a riskless way to save money. Consider reading "Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods" by Kuiper et al. or similar to understand how scientists currently asses risks for GMO food, and then the history of any substance later discovered to be harmful to humans (I recommend Gately's Tobacco book). We have a lot of evidence but it is far too soon to call the GMO race, as the potential benefit is something like $3/meal and the potential cost includes things like cancer.
2. You are forgetting that PG also consumes GMO food, and that OP also runs a business.
3. In transactions engaged in by intelligent people, both sides believe they are getting more value than they are giving up. Because of this, your distinction between OP giving money to Monsanto and PG getting money from Monsanto doesn't matter -- both sides are benefiting more than the cost incurred.
4. Your second to last point ("If Monsanto's business practices bother you, factor that into your purchasing decisions") is obviously true, and exactly the kind of thing OP seems to agree with -- he has even taken it further and used those morals in the design of his own business.
5. "Monsanto is not the only beneficiary of their evil ways, though: because of their evilness, millions of Americans spend less on food than they otherwise would" ... and have an increased risk for all sorts of disease. See #1. What odds do you give that GMOs do not cause an increase in disease? In light of that number being non-zero, would you like to take back this statement?
> ... and have an increased risk for all sorts of disease. See #1. What odds do you give that GMOs do not cause an increase in disease? In light of that number being non-zero, would you like to take back this statement?
GMOs, herbicides, and pesticides have saved hundreds of millions of lives from death by famine. Current levels of food production are not possible with GMOs.
> GMO race, as the potential benefit is something like $3/meal and the potential cost includes things like cancer.
That's a lot of money. In America, where people make $7 / hour, its easy to say, we'd all be better off eating non GMOs, but in many parts of India, Africa, and China, when people make $7 / week, GMOs lower prices to sustainable levels. Note that when I say "sustainable", I mean "able to sustain currently levels of human population".
> GMOs, herbicides, and pesticides have saved hundreds of millions of lives from death by famine. Current levels of food production are not possible with GMOs.
That's great. But, we need to look ahead. Monsanto's high-yield crops rely on herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. This negatively affects biodiversity[1], genetic diversity, pollinator populations[2] and increases risk of cancer[3] and land degradation[4]. High-yield crops are a quick fix. Patch work. What about in 25 or 50 years? What if we have severe colony collapse? What if we have severe soil contamination and degradation? How will we feed ourselves then? What if we have to increase our use of pesticides just to get the same yield?
Right. This is the argument popularized by Penn & Teller in their GMO Bullshit episode.
1. My $3/meal was for US eaters. Remember that locally grown crops in 3rd world countries cost much less, as the cost of human time and land is lower there.
2. Ignoring #1 (ie. if we're looking at the choice between dying and eating GMO food), then of course eating GMO is the lesser of all evils.
3. GMO isn't the only way to produce enough food for the world. Better storage and transport tech would go a long way. There is also the agri-skyscraper concepts, but I'm sure you've seen those.
I'm not a Monsanto fan at all, and actually called out pg on his comment, but you are 100% correct in your analysis of where the real source of "evil" comes from.
That being said, the emergence of the organic food movement and such businesses such as Whole Foods goes to show that people are starting to adjust their spending habits.
In an effort to support this, I'm sure you'd agree that the end consumer should be supported in understanding what is in their food. Interestingly, Monsanto actively opposes the labeling of GMO foods, or the labeling of milk as being rBGH free.
(Quick hint if you care: buy your milk in Canada - or anywhere else in the western world - where rBGH has been determined to be too dangerous to add to milk).
I don't think it's all that crazy to postulate why Monsanto opposes labeling milk as rBGH free. Their position is that there are absolutely zero health effects for rBGH on humans (which as far as I know isn't disputed by any study). There is research that shows that it's harmful to the animals, but that doesn't seem to bother us here as much.
If their competitors are trying to introduce what they consider an "artificial distinction" based on FUD, what should their reaction be?
By the way, I'm not saying they're correct. Who knows, in 30 years our entire society might become all "Children of Men" and lead to our species extinction. I'd bet not though.
If you looked in my apartment, you'd think I was a proponent of the organic food movement; but it's all an illusion. Left to my own devices, I would eat nothing but Capn' Crunch and Hungry Man dinners. What changed for me was when my girlfriend moved in with me. She's basically a walking allergy test. It's easier for her to describe what foods she isn't allergic to.
We had to start buying organic vegetables because they were the only ones we could find that aren't sprayed with sulfites (which she's allergic to). She couldn't eat the potatoes we had in the house (which broke my Irish heart...for people here, imagine if your significant other was allergic to parenthesis).
She's allergic to the hormones they inject into beef. Even buying free-range, organic beef where they read poetry to the cows and slaughter them by having them laugh to death was about 50/50 whether she'd break out in hives.
Our solution was to switch to ground bison as a ground beef replacement (for whatever reason they don't appear to give bison hormones, maybe that'd change if they were more popular).
But there's a cost to all of this. It costs us ridiculously more for food than it used to.
I don't know if the emergence of the organic food movement or the success of Whole Foods is really as indicative of people caring about these things as much as you think it is. There's been an enormous emergence of sales of Steampunk goggles too, but I'm not sure that's all that widespread. People tend to find ways to spend their money. If they think that paying $50 for a single bag of vegetables from Whole Foods results in them getting better quality food, there's a segment of the population that will do that.
buy your milk in Canada - or anywhere else in the western world - where rBGH has been determined to be too dangerous to add to milk
rBGH isn't added to milk; it's injected into cows. The misconception that the milk itself necessarily contains rBGH is precisely the justification that Monsanto claims for restraining "rBGH free" labels. I don't think that's an adequate justification, though, and I agree with the thrust of your point.
You are of course correct. Countries that have banned it cite the welfare of the animal rather than human health as well.
Of course the only industrialized nation to use rbgh is the USA. To be honest, I find it rather interesting that so much of the world seems to care so much about cows. My take is if the health of the animal is reduced, it probably stands to reason that the byproducts of said animal is probably worth avoiding.
I'm not necessarily opposed at all, in the same way I'm not necessarily opposed to smoking, or chocolate or potatoes.
I don't see however why I should not be told what is inside each particular product. If the cow was given antibiotics or chocolate to eat all day or allowed to run free for life, why shouldn't I be allowed to know this as a consumer?
Not efficient so much, as it externalizes costs away from the customer purchasing transaction and onto other actors in the system, like farmers and the environment.
Monsanto is not the only beneficiary of their evil ways, though: because of their evilness, millions of Americans spend less on food than they otherwise would.
Have you thought this through? Are you saying exploitation of some to the 'benefit' of others is okay?
Have you thought this through? Are you saying exploitation of some to the 'benefit' of others is okay?
That's the philosophy of utilitarianism in a nutshell. This is not a debate that can, or will, be resolved on HN. You might want to read up on 'Kaldor-Hicks efficiency' and 'Pareto optimality' which explores this concept in greater detail. 'Efficiency' here means net economic utility, as opposed to Company X just saving a few $.
"If Monsanto's business practices bother you, factor that into your purchasing decisions. There are dozens of local organic farmers that would love to have your business. They usually charge more, because evil is efficient."
You've hit the nail on the head and that's exactly what I say at the end of the post. I have a feeling most people didn't make it down that far.
As for my own purchasing behavior (which isn't relevant to the post), I do try to purchase organic as often as possible ;) It's still debatable whether or not it's worth while.
People are mad at the whole system, there is the smell of revolution in the air, people are tired of excuses and rationalizations. Whether you agree with it or not a savvy business should be aware of this and tread carefully.
After all, you are directly giving money to a supermarket, which is giving it to a big agribusiness, which either is Monsanto or is a customer of Monsanto. All these evil things that Monsanto does? They're done with your money.
Contrast that with Paul Graham, who is a partial owner of an investment firm, which invested in a company, which has Monsanto as a customer. No YCombinator money is going to Monsanto. Indeed, it's the other way around: Monsanto money is going to a YCombinator company, in exchange for services. PG's criticism of the original comment was right on.
If Monsanto's business practices bother you, factor that into your purchasing decisions. There are dozens of local organic farmers that would love to have your business. They usually charge more, because evil is efficient. Monsanto is not the only beneficiary of their evil ways, though: because of their evilness, millions of Americans spend less on food than they otherwise would.