I’d say “that’s the point” if this was put out by modern media…both sides are doing this to build engagement and support. That is, writing about something, but hiding the fact that it’s nothing. They take a small fact that on its own is true…but is really quite unimportant to the larger question. They then build up on that one small fact and make it out to be a smoking gun.
They may even leave out completely relevant facts. Like in this article it says “Monsanto pledged to not commercialize the seed,” but doesn’t mention the UN COP8 moratorium on them.
But the other thing is…op posted this from a college website, possibly because they think it’s an academic paper…but it’s not. It’s a summary of case studies in from their CONS200 “Foundations of conservation” program.
That entire page says “this would be a bad thing to exist”. But it doesn’t. There are no commercial terminator seeds.
Well, it says “this would be a bad thing to sell,” my read is that it exists and Monsanto owns the IP.
I’d say “that’s the point” if this was put out by modern media…both sides are doing this to build engagement and support. That is, writing about something, but hiding the fact that it’s nothing. They take a small fact that on its own is true…but is really quite unimportant to the larger question. They then build up on that one small fact and make it out to be a smoking gun.
They may even leave out completely relevant facts. Like in this article it says “Monsanto pledged to not commercialize the seed,” but doesn’t mention the UN COP8 moratorium on them.
But the other thing is…op posted this from a college website, possibly because they think it’s an academic paper…but it’s not. It’s a summary of case studies in from their CONS200 “Foundations of conservation” program.