Monsanto?!

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The statement was intentionally hyperbolic to provoke thought and discussion of the issue here. It was in response to the post above it, regarding "tainted money," and contained a direct analogy to real world events. I prefaced it with "speaking hypothetically" for a reason.

I'll say the same thing I said privately then: That argument is flawed. It means that any arguments (or at least any parallels we could draw) are based on the assumption that Monsanto has done something illegal (or, has not paid the court ordered penalty for illegal actions if they DID do something illegal). You may call them morally repugnant (and there's a chance I'd even agree with that) but to claim they have broken the law and not paid all legally required penalties is a dangerous road to tread on.

Now, what discussion should we be having here? A discussion about whether a company that makes its profits in ways that some of us call questionable should be allowed to donate to groups? A discussion whether FIRST should have turned away funding from a company that makes its profits this way? Or can we just be happy that some of this, in your opinion, ill gotten money is being given back to a group that isn't bad?

I'm cool having any of those discussions, but if this is going to turn into comparing a legal company to an organization focused on illegal activities or in attacking specific companies I'm not so sure that this is the proper forum.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'll say the same thing I said privately then: That argument is flawed. It means that any arguments (or at least any parallels we could draw) are based on the assumption that Monsanto has done something illegal (or, has not paid the court ordered penalty for illegal actions if they DID do something illegal). You may call them morally repugnant (and there's a chance I'd even agree with that) but to claim they have broken the law and not paid all legally required penalties is a dangerous road to tread on.

Please find where I claimed they have broken the law. You won't be able to, because I didn't. You're attempting to insert assumptions about the intents of my statements that aren't actually present in my statements. Please read what I read and take it literally, rather inserting your own biases when you attempt to read between the lines.

My point was rhetorical. My choice of using the mafia was intended to find an organization that everyone could find obvious flaws with and largely contempt towards, as well as drawing a parallel to the real word activities of the Yakuza in Japan after the 2011 tsunami. The idea was to demonstrate that even "morally repugnant" organizations can do good deeds. Rather than follow was is essentially a ad hominem attack on the organization, this action of the organization should be viewed on its own merits.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Now, what discussion should we be having here? A discussion about whether a company that makes its profits in ways that some of us call questionable should be allowed to donate to groups? A discussion whether FIRST should have turned away funding from a company that makes its profits this way? Or can we just be happy that some of this, in your opinion, ill gotten money is being given back to a group that isn't bad?

I'm cool having any of those discussions, but if this is going to turn into comparing a legal company to an organization focused on illegal activities or in attacking specific companies I'm not so sure that this is the proper forum.

You seem to grasp the basic point of my comment. Rather than attempting to spin my post into something it was not meant to be, and which nobody but yourself has drawn publically, you can chose to continue with the conversation.

[E Dawg]

Would any single person legitimately feel comfortable showing the CEO of Monsanto this thread? There was already a similar discussion (although the issue was different) with FIRST being sponsored by Jane Cosmetics. I know we may not all agree on our sponsors, and that's fine. No company is perfect. But are we really going to go back and forth on CD having conversations about our sponsors that could easily be interpreted as ungrateful?

Nobody is forcing any of our sponsors to help us. It's by their own choice, and they could at any point decide to stop sponsoring FIRST. The best way we can hold on to our sponsors is by showing gratitude to them. I've yet to see a thread on CD that THANKS major FIRST sponsors. I've only seen ones questioning them. I can tell from these threads most people are grateful, but I'm not so sure we do a very good job of showing it.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Wait, seriously? Mafia presumably is an organization that primarily works in illegal industries.

Monsanto is a perfectly legal company whether you agree with their business practices or not.

That's not the issue here. We're discussing ethics, not legality. If the only judgement of a company's ethical practice is strict adherence to the law, then pretty much any business is ethical. I don't think most would agree with this assessment. Sean's point was to pick an *obviously* unethical organization giving money to an *obviously* ethical cause to stimulate discussion.

Something that makes this situation different than other ethical decisions involving individuals and corporations is that sponsorship of an FRC team is rarely a large net benefit to the sponsoring organization (at least short term). The extra press and attention the brand gets is not particularly notable, certainly not for the cost. It's a lot harder to argue that agreeing to be sponsored by an organization is a form of supporting that organization. Choosing not to be sponsored by a company you have deemed unethical for whatever reason doesn't hurt the company or prevent it from growing at all.

Buying company product, working with the company, working for the company, these are when ethical decisions obviously come to play. I don't necessarily see how they do here.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Something that makes this situation different than other ethical decisions involving individuals and corporations is that sponsorship of an FRC team is rarely a large net benefit to the sponsoring organization (at least short term). The extra press and attention the brand gets is not particularly notable, certainly not for the cost. It's a lot harder to argue that agreeing to be sponsored by an organization is a form of supporting that organization. Choosing not to be sponsored by a company you have deemed unethical for whatever reason doesn't hurt the company or prevent it from growing at all.

Buying company product, working with the company, working for the company, these are when ethical decisions obviously come to play. I don't necessarily see how they do here.

1.) There is almost always some measured net benefit to a corporation's sponsorship of FRC teams and/or events. It is up to each corporation to figure out how - some need more PR, some need better interns/employees and some want a combination of both plus tax incentives.
2.) The whole 'ethics' debate here is about Monsanto's intent vs. execution. They use technology to address a growing world problem (great intent) yet repeatedly hide or undermine attempts for transparency or to study the side effects (questionable execution). We can even supersede the GMO debate since drought-resistant GMO wheat is a key reason the Midwest survived the Dust Bowl in the 1930's.
3.) At this time, no one can claim 100% certainty about whether Monsanto's current practices have long-term detrimental effects on human health. The studies I've read make conclusions one way or the other and yet have glaring holes in the scientific method. Being "pretty sure it's safe" or "pretty sure it's bad" just isn't good enough.
4.) Here's the X Factor (to address Chris's statement): When was the last time you ate something grown from Monsanto seeds and/or used with other Monsanto products? Are you sure it was so long ago? It is increasingly difficult to avoid derivative food products from a given company, especially foods from publicly-traded companies with incentives to delay transparency to the consumer.

As an overall FIRST sponsorship - it's not like I'm going to Monsanto to sponsor my own hobbies, so it really isn't my concern who they sponsor. -0.02.

GMO vs non-GMO debate is healthy for these forums. Perhaps a FIRST alum will solve the problem Monsanto is trying to address, but without chemical baths. Comparing Monsanto to the Mafia is a little extreme, but I understand the point made.

[waialua359]

Monsanto Hawaii has supported us the last several years, and we even got a much larger grant amount through their corporate U.S. Site grant this past year.

Aside from the GMO-nonGMO debate, our team is grateful for the opportunity they provide our team members in getting the experience of FIRST Robotics. We treat them like any of our other supporters with the utmost respect and professionalism.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JesseK

2.) The whole 'ethics' debate here is about Monsanto's intent vs. execution. They use technology to address a growing world problem (great intent) yet repeatedly hide or undermine attempts for transparency or to study the side effects (questionable execution). We can even supersede the GMO debate since drought-resistant GMO wheat is a key reason the Midwest survived the Dust Bowl in the 1930's.
3.) At this time, no one can claim 100% certainty about whether Monsanto's current practices have long-term detrimental effects on human health. The studies I've read make conclusions one way or the other and yet have glaring holes in the scientific method. Being "pretty sure it's safe" or "pretty sure it's bad" just isn't good enough.

I feel it's worth noting that there are a few other areas of concern for Monsanto. There's GMO as a whole, which I don't think is obviously or inherently bad. Genetic modification to resist pesticides is of a much greater concern to me as these modifications find their ways into other crops and plants in the environment, requiring the invention of more exotic and dangerous pesticides to keep up.

The biggest ethical concern I have is with their business practices. Monsanto has patented genome sequences for plants. This alone is fairly ridiculous, literally patenting a form of life, but their enforcement of these patents is particularly terrible. If a non-Monsanto farmer sits near a Monsanto farm, there's a significant chance of some of the Monsanto seeds spilling over into this farm. Monsanto then sues the pants off of anyone whose farm somehow acquired even a tiny number of Monsanto crops without having bought their seeds - even though the seeds were bought and paid for by another farmer and there was zero human intervention leading to the "infringement". In many situations this essentially forces farmers to either buy Monsanto to avoid these lawsuits or fold entirely. It's weird because they aren't suing for theft - Monsanto loses no money - and the other farm likely doesn't care that they lost a dozen seeds due to wind, but they're suing for *patent infringement*.

4.) Here's the X Factor (to address Chris's statement): When was the last time you ate something grown from Monsanto seeds and/or used with other Monsanto products? Are you sure it was so long ago? It is increasingly difficult to avoid derivative food products from a given company, especially foods from publicly-traded companies with incentives to delay transparency to the consumer.

Ethical consumerism is a whole 'nother debate, but it's highly likely that you have eaten Monsanto products several times a week if not daily. With thousands of brands sourcing from Monsanto it's practically impossible to avoid them without serious concentrated effort.

[StillDefective]

Monsanto has a MASSIVE presence in Saint Louis, so it would make sense to sponsor a massive event like the CMP.

I might not agree with some of their practices, but without GM crops we probably wouldn't be able to eat any tomatoes. Plus, just cross pollinating plants is genetically modifying them. Mendel has been doing that since like the 1840s, and he was nowhere near the first. (Just the most notable to me)

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

There's GMO as a whole, which I don't think is obviously or inherently bad.

There really isn't so much of a debate about GMOs as a whole as there is a very small, loud minority of people shouting "HEALTH!" and making sensationalist claims in the absence of evidence. You'd be hard-pressed to find any rational criticism about genetic modification in principle, because it's precisely the same thing we've been doing for the entire history of human agriculture.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

There really isn't so much of a debate about GMOs as a whole as there is a very small, loud minority of people shouting "HEALTH!" and making sensationalist claims in the absence of evidence.

Exactly. My high school (the School of Environmental Studies) spends nearly half a school year between junior and senior years on GMOs, related business practices, and the like. If you want to talk unethical business practices, GMOs are a great way to start a discussion. Health, not so much.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Exactly. My high school (the School of Environmental Studies) spends nearly half a school year between junior and senior years on GMOs, related business practices, and the like. If you want to talk unethical business practices, GMOs are a great way to start a discussion. Health, not so much.

I don't think anything about GMOs are inherently unethical in terms of business practices. The do present the opportunity for ethical dilemmas to be created, but I don't blame the GMOs for that. It's more of a dilemma of our intellectual property system, and the abuses of it, as well as our corporate farming structure.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I don't think anything about GMOs are inherently unethical in terms of business practices. The do present the opportunity for ethical dilemmas to be created, but I don't blame the GMOs for that. It's more of a dilemma of our intellectual property system, and the abuses of it, as well as our corporate farming structure.

Oh, I agree there's nothing inherently unethical with businesses involving GMOs, but it's a fantastic portal into talking about unethical business practices, as well as general human behavior in regards to the environment and the effects of technology on the environment and human culture. It's a very interesting subject that has a large variety of ramifications that are all in my opinion fascinating.

[who716]

[quote=Andrew Schreiber;1382836]Wait, seriously? Mafia presumably is an organization that primarily works in illegal industries.

Monsanto is a perfectly legal company whether you agree with their business practices or not.[/QUOTE/]

I just did a project on them and im fine with there gmo's what im not fine with is the way they spread there gmo's to other farms suing land owners for accidently growing there patented corn, when the seeds float in through the wind.

[Conor Ryan]

Did anybody go on a Monsanto tour that was offered at champs?

[AllenGregoryIV]

In general shouldn't we want all organizations to come into FIRST. Their money and volunteers can help us on our mission but also by being involved in FIRST their organization can change as well. The ideals we support of GP and coopertition could spread to more organizations and that is not going to happen if we shut anyone out.