In general, invention of new things is something humanity's been tackling for quite awhile. Why would this apply specifically to food versus, well, everything?

▲

basilikum 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are inanimate objects that are manually made out of raw materials by humans. It can make sense to grant the inventor of such a thing a time limited monopoly on its production by banning anyone else from manufacturing it for sale and distribution.

Living beings are not inanimate objects that are manually made out of raw materials. They are not human-made. They reproduce and humans only create the environment for this to happen. You cannot invent a living being. You can invent a modification in the genome and thereby create a new breed, but that should not grant you the right to have a monopoly on the reproduction of those living beings.

▲

ribosometronome 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Patents function only to limit the actions of what living beings can and cannot do.

Plus, it's seems false to paint this orchard as just an environment humans created where they reproduced. It's a place where the farmer very specifically reproduced them, not just the conditions.

	▲	basilikum 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Patents function only to limit the actions of what living beings can and cannot do. Like all other laws. I don't see how this is relevant. > It's a place where the farmer very specifically reproduced them, not just the conditions. Sorry to be so blunt, but the farmer is neither fucking peaches nor giving birth to them. Living beings self reproduce. Humans sometimes put a lot of work into creating the perfect conditions for that to happen, but that is irrelevant to the point. When I smash rocks together to create a tool I and only I created that. When I plant seeds for them to grow into fruits which contain many more seeds I did not create the new seeds on my own. That does not make my work any less valuable but it does change the nature of the action. The first scenario should be allowed to be restricted to the inventor for a limited time. The second scenario should not be restricted. The act of reproduction of life should never be seen as anyone's property.

▲

pjmorris 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can go for a month, probably longer, without, say, the internet. I could also go a month without food, maybe, but there are people who can't. Food is different because it is essential to life.

	▲	ribosometronome 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The food that is patented isn't essential to life, though. Essentially all of humanity has lived all of it's lifetimes without this modern varietal of nectarines just fine. There are certainly tons of cases where modern developments might be actually essentially to life or extend life like with medication, medical devices, temperature control, moves to modern electric technologies versus combustion to reduce pollution, etc. How do we incentivize new medication development, something way more lifesaving than nectarine varietals, without some period of exclusivity? At least there, twenty years from now, the solutions will be more accessible versus never developed.
	▲	EA-3167 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This relates in no way to the availability of food, which in the US at least is high enough that starvation is the preserve of the terminally ill, anorexic/bulimic, addicted and indigent, rather than people who can't find calories to eat. This is almost entirely an economic issue that would be a lot easier to discuss without the incessant and repetitive emotional comments.
	▲	s1artibartfast 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What does this have to do with anything? Not all species are patented. If farmers dont want to pay for patented species, then they will grow unpatented food, which you can eat.