• 0 Posts
  • 284 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 4th, 2024

help-circle


  • Well there’s this case where Monsanto sued a farm for replanting seeds they had a patent on.

    And there’s several other cases similar to that where Monsanto has sued farmers. For instance in “David vs Monsanto”, when a farmer found out some canola plants were roundup-resistant and propogated them on his farm. Monsanto sued him for not having them removed, especially since Monsanto had a program where if they were informed, they’d removed them for farmers.

    So while it’s not exactly as deceived above, it’s not far off.








  • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.orgtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldRadon
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    The whole concept is more akin to whether or not you are working directly with the material fruits of your labor, or if you’re some secondary or tertiary job to the actual work being done.

    Basically, their view is that if you are not directly making the product or apart of the physical logistics for that product, then you’re in a bullshit job. I would not say I agree with the philosophy myself, but i kind of get it. ‘I farm Corn’, ‘I Truck frozen food’, and ‘I catch fish’, do exist in a very different realm from ‘I manage a team of QA specialists’, ‘I am an Advertisement Consultant’, and ‘I contribute to my company’s server backend codebase’.

    Also, yeah, the 3-word rule of thumb sucks.




  • You’re carrying out a similar fallacy by claiming use of the term in its original field is illigitimate in this argument. On top of that, right on the wikipedia page for Eusociality, it states that biologists such as E.O. Wilson have previously argued that humans are weakly eusocial, weakening your whole argument in the first place.

    The concept of humans as super-organisms is explored in both sociology and biology, and i’d argue that that means humans fit the bill. Whatever no-true-Scotsman version you’ve been gate keeping with doesn’t even fully agree with the field you’re supposedly arguing on the behalf of.


  • I see you’re point, I was a bit hasty when saying there’s no good reason to make an exception.

    I still do not agree with the argument that ‘Ants are a superorganism, so it’s not really a genocide’. For humans it’s a genocide, because we’re trying to describe a social crime within humanity. For everything else, extermination is communicating the same thing, but generically.