Appreciate your thoughts about Monsanto - you present some interesting ideas. I
agree that it's important to see the people at these corporations through their
own eyes, if nothing else to have a chance at opening their eyes to our
viewpoints - and even more importantly, to retain our own humanity. I hope that
you see that viewpoint in the email I sent on this subject a while back, for
it's very central to my philosophy.
But in my journey on this subject I've become less naive about the people at
some of these companies. You nudge-nudge about the contradictions between their
actions and the philosophies they loudly proclaim in response to our concerns,
saying that it's "just" human self-interest showing itself again. As I said in
my email, I'm curious how they themselves would frame their actions. But I feel
they're less innocent of the risks they present, and their subversion of
democratic processes, than it seems that you do.
I've seen so much evidence of meticulously-planned programs for consistent
repetition of their hugely-flawed messages in a variety of media, funding of
supposedly-independent groups that just happen reach the conclusions of the
corporate programs, cynical use of PR to promulgate perceptions that are clearly
contrary to facts, suppression of opposition through the courts and funding,
suppression of evidence that their products do harm - so many horrifying acts -
that it's just too hard for me to believe that the difference between their
words and deeds is always unintentional. I find it hard to believe that people
I presume to be intelligent from their position have no idea of the negatives of
their actions - especially when given so many opportunities to consider other
viewpoints.
So, I agree that we shouldn't demonize corporations and that's in our
self-interest to avoid unncessary inflammatory statements. But I don't think
that means we need to be naive in looking at and discussing their motives and
actions, and in holding them accountable for what they say and do, just as we
would any person. It's important to recognize the nature of a beast if one
wants to survive. Being aware of the most effective way to talk with people so
they can listen is important - but so is having (and thus sharing) the facts on
their deceptions, lies, etc., so one doesn't just fall for a convenient snowjob
while their harmful actions continue unabated....
P. Dines
P.S. In making a plan for increasing wisdom in our agriculture, it can be useful
to look clearly at all the players. You mention those who demonize chemical
farmers - but in my mind the chemical farmers are often victims too. They're
often not told the risks or alternatives to these toxics - by the chemical
companies, their representatives, or by the magazines dominated by their ads.
This leads to them using pesticides that aren't necessarily right for the job,
can kill their beneficials and otherwise harm their farming, and can increase
their personal risk of certain diseases (in addition to the larger harm that's
done). So one strategy I use is just to tell the farmers and users these types
of facts, allowing for room that some of them really just don't know and giving
them a chance to let this information influence their actions.
P.P.S. You discuss that some of the corporate actions come from the way the
economic playing field is designed, and that's true. But there are many
corporations who spend a great deal of time, money and energy manipulating the
board to make it even more cutthroat and dominated by just financial interests
(ex. NAFTA), with no accounting for the balancing human values (worker
well-being, environment, etc. - NAFTA rules allow nearly all of those concerns
to be "illegal constraints of trade"!!), that it's hard for me to consider those
actors innocent victims of a game they've helped to design.
I've studied business and the free market and worked in many corporations, so I
know quite a bit about how business structured, the underlying philosophy, and
even some of the benefits it can bring. I'm not against business out of hand.
But if certain philosophies are going to be used to justify actions, but are
completely ignored to justify others, I think it's important and useful to point
that out. Such as raising the flag of the free market, then pulling out the
stops to prevent one of the its key elements, consumer information. To do this
is either to not understand free market theory, or to just be using any
convenient excuse for throwing up whatever BS seems to support the things you
want to do anyway. It certainly doesn't reveal integrity or even confidence in
the safety of the product. I think it's vital to shine a light on such
discrepencies so they can be examined, rather than just blindly allowing some
corporations shoddy self-interested contradictory premises be used to set the
policy that impacts all of our lives. That to me is part of being informed
participating citizens in what at least as some of the vestiges of being a
democracy.
P.P.P.S. As I look at the huge amounts of money, time, and energy that I see
corporations spend on manipulating the game and public opinion, I can't help but
wonder what would happen if it were instead focussed on really solving the world
problems that so many corporations claim to want to solve? I think it's
reasonable and powerful for us to ask that question , and I'd be delighted if
the humans in corporations took the lead in making that vision real, for I think
in that context they would have much more benefit to offer the world.