Information technology advancements systematically convert traditional common goods into private goods.
the verdict
INSUFFICIENT LEANING
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
Available literature discusses specific instances where digital sequencing and technological monopolies interact with common resources, but lacks broad evidence demonstrating that information technology advancements systematically convert all traditional common goods into private goods.
Contestations about the way in which digital sequence information is used and regulated have created stumbling blocks across multiple international policy processes. Such schisms have profound implications for the way in which we manage and conceptualize agrobiodiversity and its benefits. This paper explores the relationship between farmers' rights, as recognized in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and the dematerialization of genetic resources. Using concepts of "stewardship" and "ownership" we emphasize the need to move away from viewing agrobiodiversity as a commodity that can be owned, toward a strengthened, proactive and expansive stewardship approach that recognizes plant genetic resources for food and agriculture as a public good which should be governed as such. Through this lens we analyze the relationship between digital sequence information and different elements of farmers' rights to compare and contrast implications for the governance of digital sequence information. Two possible parallel pathways are presented, the first envisaging an enhanced multilateral system that includes digital sequence information and which promotes and enhances the realization of farmers' rights; and the second a more radical approach that folds together concepts of stewardship, farmers' rights, and open source science. Farmers' rights, we suggest, may well be the linchpin for finding fair and equitable solutions for digital sequence information beyond the bilateral and transactional approach that has come to characterize access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Existing policy uncertainties could be seized as an unexpected but serendipitous opportunity to chart an alternative and visionary pathway for the rights of farmers and other custodians of plant genetic resources.
Such approaches, we suggest, may offer potential solutions to “reconstitute the commons” ( Kloppenburg, 2014 ) although their use requires careful attention to ensure alignment with, and enable protection of, the customary norms and practices of farmers and those conserving agrobiodiversity. We begin the paper by describing how the management of plant genetic resources has transformed from a
This highly transactional approach was largely reliant on contracts negotiated between so-called providers and users of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The CBD represented a fundamental change in the way in which genetic resources were exchanged and viewed: no longer were they seen as the common heritage of humankind, as countries increasingly asserted sovereign rights over their biological and genetic resources and control over their access.
By establishing ABS as the main instrument for achieving the objective of “fair and equitable sharing of benefits” derived from the use of genetic resources, the CBD endorsed not only the possibility of IPRs on products, but also state ownership of genetic resources ( Halewood et al., 2012 ; Bjørnstad and Westengen, 2019 ). As a result, both private companies and states were sanctioned through international law to enclose the genetic commons ( Sievers-Glotzbach and Christinck, 2020 ).
If farmers have reared a particular plant to express desired traits over generations and this plant’s genome is sequenced, then the traditional knowledge of those who bred this plant is embedded within this DSI – although some species will clearly be more actively bred and managed than others ( Smyth et al., 2020 ). A central question, therefore, is whether traditional knowledge can be decoupled from a plant’s underlying genomic information, should it be transcribed into DSI.
Article 13, referring to the MLS, includes such benefits as (1) facilitated access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; (2) the exchange of information; (3) access to, and transfer of, technology; (4) capacity building, and (5) the sharing of monetary and other benefits arising from commercialization. Benefits shared under the MLS are intended to flow to all farmers, but especially to those in “developing” countries and economies in transition, who conserve and sustainably utilize PGRFA.
Of interest, is the parallel development of open source approaches in DSI databases, which create a “contractually constructed research commons” that allows DSI research, which is dependent upon exchange, collaboration, and the free flow of information, to flourish in highly protectionist intellectual property environments ( Reichman and Okedji, 2012 ; Reichman et al., 2016 ). As Laird and Wynberg (2018) describe, these approaches are intended to facilitate the free exchange of information, technology and materials, and support increasingly networked and collaborative research. They also allow for greater transparency and visibility.
A stewardship approach would also maintain and enhance the legal space and possibilities to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of crop genetic resources by supporting traditional agriculture, including the use and free exchange of farmers’ seed. The paradox, however, is that without sufficient measures, this approach could result in genetic resources and associated information being privatized, with ownership captured by those other than farmers and knowledge holders.
In this regard, we suggest that open-source arrangements might hold potential to create a protected commons populated by farmers and plant breeders whose materials would be freely available and widely exchanged but protected from appropriation. The question arises as to how stewardship can be secured within a framework that achieves conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources, the sharing of benefits arising from the use of these resources as well as associated information, and the realization of farmers’ rights, while integrating the rapid advances in science and technology that are changing the ways genetic resources are used.
According to Smith exclusive title to natural resources and technologies should be converted to inclusive conditional titles—the condition being that society
Economic democracy (sometimes called a democratic economy) is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift ownership and decision-making power from corporate shareholders and corporate managers (such as a board of directors) to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, consumers, suppliers, communities and the broader public. No single definition or approach encompasses eco
Emperors and conquistadors were interested mostly in plunder and tribute, gold and glory. Capitalist imperialism differs from these earlier forms in the way it systematically accumulates capital through the organized exploitation of labor and the penetration of overseas markets. Capitalist imperialism invests in other countries, transforming and dominating their economies, cultures, and political life, integrating their financial and productive structures into an international system of capital accumulation.
In his book, The Political Struggle for the 21st century, J.W. Smith examines the economic basis for the history of imperial civilization. On a global scale, he says developed nations tended to impede or prohibit the economic and technological advancement of weaker developing countries through the military force, martial law, and inequitable practices of trade that typically characterize colonialism. Rhetorically termed as "survival of the fittest", or "might makes right", such economic crises stem from the imbalances imposed by corporate imperialism. Just as cities in the Middle Ages monopolized the means of production by conquering and controlling the sources of raw materials and countryside markets, Smith claims that contemporary centers of capital now control our present world through private monopoly of public resources sometimes known as "the commons". Through inequalities of trade, developing countries ar
The laws and customs that govern the relationships among these entities constitute the economic structure of a given society. Alternately, David Schweickart asserts in his book, After Capitalism: "The structure of a capitalist society consists of three basic components: "The bulk of the means of production are privately owned, either directly by individuals or by corporations that are themselves owned by private individuals. "Products are exchanged in a market -- that is to say, goods and services are bought and sold at prices determined for the most part by competition and not by some governmental pricing authority.
Just as cities in the Middle Ages monopolized the means of production by conquering and controlling the sources of raw materials and countryside markets, Smith claims that contemporary centers of capital now control our present world through private monopoly of public resources sometimes known as "the commons".
King maintained: The problem indicates that our emphasis must be two-fold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available.
Banks are public, not private, institutions that make grants, not loans, to business enterprises. According to Schweickart, these grants do not represent "free money", since an investment grant counts as an addition to the capital assets of the enterprise, upon which the capital-asset tax must be paid. Thus the capital assets tax functions as an interest rate. A bank grant is essentially a loan requiring interest payments but no repayment of principal.
While these measures have never been implemented in their purest form, they have provided a foundation for Social Credit political parties in many countries and for reform agendas that retain the title, "economic democracy". ==== National dividend ==== In his book, Capitalism 3.0, Peter Barnes likens a "National
Smith divided "primary (feudal) monopoly" into four general categories: banking; land; technology and communications. He listed three general categories of "secondary (modern) monopoly"; insurance, law, health care. Smith further claimed that converting these exclusive entitlements to inclusive human rights would minimize battles for market share, thereby eliminating most offices and staff needed to maintain monopoly structures, and stop the wars generated to protect them. Dissolving roughly half the economic activity of a monopoly system would reduce the costs of common resources by roughly half, and significantly minimize the most influential factors of poverty.
In Smith's view, most taxes should be eliminated, and productive enterprise should be privately owned and managed. Inventors should be paid well and all technology placed in the public domain. Crucial services currently monopolized through licensing should be legislated as human rights. Smith envisioned a balanced economy under a socially owned banking commons within an inclusive society with full and equal rights for all. Federated regions collect resource rents on land and technology to a social fund to operate governments and care for social needs. Socially owned banks provide finance capital by creating debt-free money for social infrastructure and industry.
Worker cooperatives generally employ an industrial model called workplace democracy, which rejects the "master-servant relationship" implicit in the traditional employment contract. According to Wilkinson and Pickett, neither ownership or participation alone are sufficient to establish democracy in the workplace. "[M]any share-ownership schemes amount to little more than incentive schemes, intended to make employees more compliant with management and sometimes to provide a nest-egg for retirement...
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.