GM Agriculture Pros and Cons

JT Slayton — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 18:33:35 -0500

According to “Bio: Biotechnology Industry Organization,” only 10% of the world’s land is arable. They also state that by 2050, 50% of that land will be used for other purposes and the global population will have increased by 50%. We are looking at the possibility of a severe food crisis if we are not careful.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:06:39 -0500

It would be interesting if the UN or another international organization invited consumers, stakeholders and the general public to help establish green priority and rating systems for an ISO. It could be through a website with access to articles, debates, blogs and a voting system. It would be a great way to incorporate voices from throughout the world. It would also initiate sustained and increased involvement of global citizenry which, in turn, would help maintain watchdog activities and increase international business transparency.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:38:50 -0500

Warner makes sad but all too predictable observations about corporate doubletalk. Clearly, going green is only of mild importance to these companies despite growing green concerns in their customer base. I completely agree that if companies make “green” statements, they should back them up. Perhaps, they are concerned about having to raise prices or the unglamorous look of unpainted toys. However, many green consumers already know that green products can cost more and that unpainted toys aren’t as sexy as other toys.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:04:02 -0500

I agree with Perkins on all of his points—with the exception of his take on Immelt’s first tenant—which could be argued from another side. First, it is in the nature of business and of many who are employed within businesses to be competitive—it is a great inspirer and without a competitive edge, many are inclined towards boredom. While I do not like to see “losers” or to dominate others, I have to admit that it is also a part of human nature which cannot be ignored.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:27:37 -0500

Heather, I agree with you. It is a win-win situation for everyone involved. Of course, there will be some people who accuse corporations and non-profits of using “strategic philanthropy” as an excuse to further the interests of the corporation—or, worse yet, they may have fears that non-profits will be unfavorably biased in the interest of promoting the corporation. However, I feel that it is like deliberating over the true definition is of going “green”. Even diluted attempts towards philanthropy or going green are better than no attempt at all.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:01:59 -0500

Heather, it would be great if farmers could plant both food and bio-fuel crops so that they have a cash crop and we have food. I would also like to see farmers earn more for food crops in general. Perhaps the “middle-men” between the farmers and consumers could be encouraged to re-examine their production costs so that they do not have to add to the cost of food. I would love to see government subsidies go towards reassessing business efficiency for “middle-men” as well as other types of businesses. Now, a move like that would be a win-win situation for everybody.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:13:53 -0500

The issue of promoting bio-fuel production through government aid is truly difficult to address. It is a question of long term verses short term benefit for people and the planet. On one hand, government aid and bio-fuel industry growth are helping struggling farmers who have been underpaid for food production. On the other hand, the potential degradation to the environment by artificially modifying species and increasing chemical use on land is frightening to say the least. It seems like the only solution will be the development of an energy solution that makes bio-fuel obsolete.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:07:37 -0500

Another factor in increasing employee trust could be employee engagement in the form of leaders or management spending time with each person to see what their job entails and which improvements they would make. At that point, if the employee’s suggestions were carried out, the employee would feel more involved in the company and job efficiency would be increased. I once met a small business owner that used this technique and it lead to a dramatic increase in productivity.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:25:29 -0500

Excellent point, Sampath, there should be periodic feedback surveys to gauge employee/employer relations. I think it should occur consistently (at least four times per year), anonymously, and be distributed throughout the company for maximum transparency. This would give everyone an opportunity to feel that their needs and voices are addressed, and it would give those who were using non-productive techniques a chance to modify their behavior without being humiliated. Also, management should reassess its approach to employee relations with each report.

Comment on Node ant

JT Slayton — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:46:25 -0500

Heather, I agree with you. Because non-profits have traditionally had to operate with low budgets, their staff has had to become very creative in order to survive and thrive. It brings me again to the idea of media coverage and interviews. It would be very interesting to hear exactly what each member brought to the table, how they affected others, and what they learned. Also, it would be illuminating if the corporations involved would allow transparency in how they have been positively impacted by the creative problem solving methods of the non-profit staff.