Pulsegleaner
Garden Master
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,551
- Reaction score
- 6,985
- Points
- 306
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, New York
That's true, but I was going a bit deeper, asking if not only should you not expect a profit, but if social responsibility obligates you to go ahead with the project knowing you will not only make no profit but even suffer massive (possibly life security ending) losses. Does the social contract mean you HAVE to sacrifice yourself for the common good, no matter the personal cost?We're on a wierd mind link with this because as I was typing my response last night I was thinking of Milton Friedman and what he would say. I hold him in the highest regard, but I imagine it might be one of the few places where I'd feel differently than he would. As a believer in free markets, its all about what the market supports; if increasing wealth is the goal, then you gotta go where you can do that. There are limits to markets though, on multiple levels. Much like having a game of chess, you can't just change the rules or limits mid-game so that you can further your own ability to win. I consider this patenting of life many things, one of which is market rigging, avoiding or preventing competition, which is the heart of the marketplace.
There are innumerable people who have invested trmendous time, money and energy into a 'product' - sometimes it's there whole life's work - and didn't turn a profit. That's just how it works sometimes. Those investments don't necessarily mean they should get paid; if that was the case then the people who invented spray on hair and the urban window baby cage need to get paid.Or even the couple a few years ago who spent years researching a 'special' name for the child they would have someday, hours of research and study of Latinate roots and horticultural terms, and when the child was born they wanted to trademark the childs' name, but couldn't. Much as they invested thier time, the marketplace (for now) doesn't support 'owning' human names and language. This is no doubt that heirloom seeds have never got much traction in the commerical world because as soon as you sell your product your consumer can reproduce if for themselves forever. It's a situation where you would be working yourself out of a job every time. It only makes sense that they weren't a good 'product' for development.
IMO if people who want to get into breeding OP vegetables they should be free to do that, but not look for rewards in that process that the market doesn't support. The heirloom seed world is no stranger to market rigging in this sense; I read not long ago the bush bean Peruano was claimed by patent in the 90's and nobody else was allowed to grow it or distribute seed. Patent was only lifted in 2008.
It all goes back to the question of when generosity turns to madness, and selflessness and self-sacrifice into self-destruction. At what point do the needs of others NOT outweigh your own? Do they ever, or do you have a duty to give literally EVERYTHING of yourself in the name of improving the general lot. And if you REFUSE to do that, are you in fact doing evil and in need of punishment by society? IS attempting self-preservation in fact an inalienable right?
To me, at least, these things don't have simple, quick answers.
