Wait, I'm confused. I thought people hated Monsanto for their GMO products which the entire argument against is that they aren't available naturally.
* GMO that don't produce viable seeds so I have to buy seeds from you every season.
* GMO that only works with some other supply available only from the same provider (think of a car that only works with gas from Ford).
* Patents on living organisms: a farmer should be allowed to plant the seeds they grew in their own farm, produce hybrids and so on, without paying royalties.
* If GMO strains get accidentally cross-pollinated from a neighbor farm you should not be on the hook for it.
OK, but unstable hybrids predate GMO by decades. Omitting the last, stabilizing cross for maize seeds has been a thing for, what, 75 years? at least.
a. Artificially make "terminator seeds"[1] that would naturally be fertile but have been made deliberately sterile, and
b. Where seeds don't have that technology, rely on contracts instead that forbid farmers from saving seeds for next year.[2]
1. http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html#terminat...
2. https://www.agweek.com/opinion/columns/4390497-what-does-tec...
This is literally DRM for plants, isn't it?
But watch shills try to divert you from that.
Monsanto et. al. are the visible symptom of a psychological malady and spiritual poverty. Greed over the sacred bond between ourselves and the life that sustains us.
Both their GMO products and their attempts to enclose and sequester the genetic commons are part and parcel of their underlying epistemological problems.
> "You can't own land, man."
> I can because I'm not a penniless dirty hippie."