He Wears His Own Glasses

RIAA -- The Non-Ethics of Thuggery

2005-12-26T18:53:00.000-08:00

Consider this recent article (excerpted from AP):

'Internet-illiterate parent' fights downloading lawsuit
WHITE PLAINS, New York (AP) -- It was Easter Sunday, and Patricia Santangelo was in church with her kids when she says the music recording industry peeked into her computer and decided to take her to court.

Santangelo says she has never downloaded a single song on her computer, but the industry didn't see it that way. The woman from Wappingers Falls is among the more than 16,000 people who have been sued for allegedly pirating music through file-sharing computer networks.

"I assumed that when I explained to them who I was and that I wasn't a computer downloader, it would just go away," she said in an interview. "I didn't really understand what it all meant. But they just kept insisting on a financial settlement."

The industry is demanding thousands of dollars to settle the case, but Santangelo, unlike the 3,700 defendants who have already settled, says she will stand on principle and fight the lawsuit.

"It's a moral issue," she said. "I can't sign something that says I agree to stop doing something I never did."

If the downloading was done on her computer, Santangelo thinks it may have been the work of a young friend of her children. Santangelo, 43, has been described by a federal judge as "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo, and who can barely retrieve her e-mail."

The drain on her resources to fight the case -- she's divorced, has five children aged 7 to 19 and works as a property manager for a real estate company -- forced her this month to drop her lawyer and begin representing herself.

"There was just no way I could continue on with a lawyer," she said. "I'm out $24,000 and we haven't even gone to trial."

So on Thursday she sat alone at the defense table before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Fox in White Plains, looking a little nervous and replying simply, "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" to his questions about scheduling and evidence exchange.

She did not look like someone who would have downloaded songs like Incubus' "Nowhere Fast," Godsmack's "Whatever" and Third Eye Blind's "Semi-Charmed Life," all of which were allegedly found on her computer.

Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, the coalition of music companies that is pressing the lawsuits, would not comment specifically on Santangelo's case. "Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and give legal online services a chance to flourish," she said. "The illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local record store."

Jon Newton, founder of an Internet site critical of the record companies, said by e-mail that with all the settlements, "The impression created is all these people have been successfully prosecuted for some as-yet undefined 'crime'. And yet not one of them has so far appeared in a court or before a judge. ... She's doing it alone. She's a courageous woman to be taking on the multibillion-dollar music industry."

Santangelo said her biggest issue is with Kazaa for allowing children to download music without parental permission. "I should have gotten at least an e-mail or something notifying me," she said. Telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment from the Australia-based owner of Kazaa, Sharman Networks Ltd., were not returned.

Her travail started when the record companies used an investigator to go online and search for copyrighted recordings being made available by individuals. The investigator allegedly found hundreds on her computer on April 11, 2004. Months later, there was a phone call from the industry's "settlement center," demanding about $7,500 "to keep me from being named in a lawsuit," Santangelo said.

Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the record companies had enough of a case to go forward. She said the issue was whether "an Internet-illiterate parent" could be held liable for her children's downloads.

What is the point of going after this woman? SHE did not download the songs. She has already disciplined her children. She ahs already served as a poster child .. so what is the point?

Mere possession of copies of songs is not a crime. The fact the someone (and RIAA knows not who) posted the links to the song collection is not a crime. The downloading might be a crime but there is ZERO EVIDENCE that this lady downloaded anything. Or that her children did. Just that someone did.

So if a storekeeper at the end of a busy post Xmas day finds a counterfeit $50 in his cash register should we prosecute him for passing counterfeit bills? Did he accept one .. it seems so. But where is the evidence that he would knowingly pass one?

The principle is the same. Or if third graders xerox a $5 bill and substitute their own pictures in the middle for Lincoln do we prosecute the parent who gave the child the $5?

RIAA is doing this because they can. It is not just. It reeks of thuggery. And such actions undermine the very ethics of the "illegal downloading" cases they wish to believe have a high moral standard. Yes, thievery is wrong and illegal downloading is theft. But chase the downloaders and their fences, not their mothers.

See http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ for more.

(Full Disclosure: Ray Beckerman -- Santangelo's former attorney and current legal advisor -- was my attorney when I lived in NYC.)

Google Book Search -- Fair Use It Is Not

2005-12-15T19:13:00.000-08:00

Google's "Print" (Book Search) was the cover story in the December 2 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education's Review. The article, like many others, has somehow managed to avoid the flaw in Google's legal reasoning.

Google's scanning/indexing project creates a "derivative" work. To create the index Google must first create an electronic copy of the original. It is the process of creating this electronic copy (i.e. scanning and OCR'ing) which is forbidden without the publisher's permission. ONLY the copyright holder has the right to CREATE a derivative work.

Google has somehow asserted that transforming a work into another medium, NOT altering any of the text, preserving the transformed copy in a lasting manner, and doing so for a commercial purpose is fair use. But, what they have done is create a derivative work -- and there is NO fair use for the creation of a derivative work. Sure they can make a fair use argument about the index -- but the dispute is not the index: it is the process of creating the index.

Harper Collins has the right idea. They will control the process of creating the index and then will give the index to whomever wants to use it. The process of creating a derivative work stays with the copyright holder.

Of course, if Google were to play ball with the publishers then much of this would be unnecessary. Most books in the last ten years were prepared with digital files and it is much easier to prepare an index from the digital file. But that would mean Google would have to give up having its own derivative work.

Why does Google want a derivative work of its own? Because copyright law asserts that if a derivative work is created with permission or under license -- OWNERSHIP of the DERIVATIVE work is vested with its creator -- i.e. Google.

Anyone want to bet that once Google has ownership rights it will vigorously protect them?

Now if Google were to give up ALL commercial rights to the project, give it and the necessary funding to a consortia of university libraries (such as the ones they are "working with") and then find a way to restrict the use of the index to educational ones (users must log in through a library, text is displayed for only limited times and is deliberately fuzzy except say for a floating box which allows you to read paragraphs, and the ability to print and read multiple pages is severely restricted), well that might be fair use .... but that is not the Google project.

See: Andrew Raff's roundup for more

Tags:
Google Print
Google
Fair Use
Copyright

France, Riots, Hungary, Gypsies: Commonalities

2005-12-09T09:12:00.000-08:00

I gave my talk on the French Riots yesterday. In an effort to make it more relevant to the CEU audience I shifted the talk to include Hungary's Gypsy (Roma) problem. The French riots were, of course, just an extension of the "normal" French thing to "be on strike." What was different this time was the look of the "strikers" (i.e. their skin color and religion) which caused the media to refer to this set of events as a riot and not as a strike.

The historic French response to racism and a lack of economic integration was to deny that the issues even existed. As a result the problems simmered and then exploded. With the Roma, Hungary faces similar issues. More than 700,000 Roma face discrimination, illiteracy, poor housing, poor health care, and massive unemployment. Moreover the Roma will exceed 20% of the population in 2030. Denial is not a long-term viable option. So what are the alternatives?

From a complex systems perspective the French Riots are an example of a situation where "weak signals" (items that can be observed but which are ignored by the powers that be) matter. In fact, many artists made use of these weak signals even as they were being ignored by the political authorities. These weak signals included:

Clustering of the second/third immigrant population
Lack of employment
Corrosive welfare system
Lack of assimilation
Strong social networks
New communication methods
Strong role models in "strikes"

These signals too repeat in Hungary with the Roma as real problems which must be addressed. It will not be enough to merely change perceptions, nor will "top down" actions (i.e. central government policy) suffice. Hungary needs to supplement its existing Roma program by having intensive language and literacy training focused on community leaders and prospective teachers where the stated aim is to provide both positive local role models and a means of inter linking the Roma social network with the rest of the country.

I believe intensive efforts should be made to find several hundred Roma computer and bio-tech students, who could also be seen as "successes" and form the nucleus of an outreach program where the computer students' success inspires others to follow. Added programs are needed to train nurse practitioners and teachers and encourage them to return to their villages. Perhaps my most radical idea lies in noted the huge symbolic and cultural value in the commitment of high status people to small step items such as having a student live with them.

Many of the attendees agreed when joining in to the discussion which followed. The audience kept asking what could be done in light of systemic and society wide prejudice and discrimination. As more and more examples were offered it was clear that problems of "separateness" and endemic in many societies. There are of course parallels in other countries such as both "Gang Members" in large US cities and illegal Latin immigrant communities in the US as well as first generation black immigrants in France. With all these communities: sometimes it's the small steps which matter most.

Tags:
France Riots

European Political Correctness

2005-12-07T12:44:00.000-08:00

I landed in Hungary for my monthly lecture and began by having an hour long open chat on Budapest's most popular chat forum. Given that I speak only a few words of Hungarian, this was an adventure for all concerned.

What intrigued me was the dedication with which the chatters pursued topics which seemed outside of their realm of concern. Why do Hungarians care about drilling in the Alaskan wilderness? Why do they care if we in the US eat genetically modified foods? Why does it offend them that we are not "nice" as we go about fighting the war on terror?

I worry when people express greater concerns for "ideas" than for realities. We are not being "just" to the terrorists they claim -- never mind the innocents who were just slaughtered by the same man they now demand "justice" for.

Thus "global warming" is more important than health care. Preserving dignity more important than providing a decent education.

I just do not get it.

Tags
Political Correctness

The Riots in France -- Economics and Racism

2005-11-29T07:19:00.000-08:00

The Fall 2005 riots in France were described by many a French politician and media outlet as the work of non-French "scum" out to cause trouble. Just today the Prime Minister tightened immigration to "control" the situation.

A complex systems view of the situation suggests the reverse is true: the riots were a very French means for a segment of French society to express need for a social correction in a proper French way. Indeed the parallels between the riots in the banlieue and the multitude of truck, rail, service, etc workers strikes willingly endured by French society are many. What was different was the look of the rioters - not their language (actually better than most strikers), their education (ditto), or satisfaction with their living conditions (ditto again).

What the riots exposed were two dangerous underbellies in both France and the rest of Europe - racism and a lack of economic integration. The historic French response was to deny that the issues even existed. As a result the problems simmered and then exploded.

Europe and Hungary face similar issues. Denial is not a long-term viable option. So what are the alternatives?

For my next provocative talk at the CEU Business School I will discuss what France did NOT do and what Europe CAN do.

Look here for more.

Interesting Commentaries can be found at economy-stupid

or "In the American model, then, you work more hours and use the money you make to pay for the things you can’t do because you’re working, and this creates a demand for service jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist. In Europe, those jobs don’t exist in anything like the same numbers; employment in services in Europe is fifteen per cent below what it is in the U.S. Service jobs are precisely the jobs that young people and women (two categories of Europeans who are severely underemployed) find it easiest to get, the jobs that immigrants here thrive on but that are often not available to immigrants in France. There are many explanations for the estimated forty-per-cent unemployment rate in the banlieues that have been the site of recent riots, but part of the problem is that voluntary leisure for some Europeans has helped lead to involuntary leisure for others. The less work that gets done, the less work there is to do. Helping some people get off the labor treadmill can keep many people from ever getting on the treadmill at all." From James Surowiecki

"Blaming Le Corbusier for the banlieue riots is like blaming the inventor of the automobile for the SUV. Not only do the banlieues--which were built without his input--look nothing like what he intended, but those "machines for living" he did construct are today considered some of the finest, most sought-after addresses in France, precisely because they have maintained his ideas about modern living. Ultimately, the fatal flaw lies not in the architecture but the system that operates within it. In other words, the riots in the banlieues don't condemn Le Corbusier; they condemn the governments that failed to follow his vision....True, the Unité d'Habitation looks, at first glance, like your average high-rise housing project. But unfortunately for the residents of the banlieues and Cabrini-Green, the differences are in the details--and they're crucial differences. The public housing authorities who copied Le Corbusier's work in the late 1950s and early '60s saw a model for cheap, high-density housing. They tore down vast swaths of urban and (in Europe) suburban neighborhoods and threw up massive, poorly built, and banally designed projects separated from the rest of the city. They rejected Le Corbusier's insistence on mixed-use development, so that residents became isolated from their jobs and social lives as well. And rather than use the buildings' densities to improve the efficiency of public services, housing authorities in Europe and North America used their anonymity and physical isolation to ignore the needs of their residents--especially when, by the late '60s, the welfare state model began to implode." From TNR

Tags:
France Riots

Thanksgiving, Ethics and Donald Trump

2005-11-25T06:47:00.000-08:00

It is Thanksgiving and in theory a time for reflection and giving thanks. But, this is 2005 and we get two hours of Donald Trump.

In the second hour of the Apprentice we are treated to a moral lesson. Take advantage of your opponents, ignore your likelihood of repeated interactions with them, lie to vendors, and go on to prosper.

One of Donald's "teams" (one has to use the word loosely -- at this stage of the Apprentice the team is more a marriage of convenience by two sworn enemies) discovers a key supplier to the other team. Armed with this knowledge they swoop in, lie about their identity, and procure all of a vital supply.

The Donald's reaction "I think it is great."

Ah yes in a winner-take-all world the correct moral lesson on Thanksgiving day is not "remember how one plays is as important as winning -- especially in a networked world with repeated interactions," but rather "lie, cheat, steal -- winning is not everything it is the only thing."

Thus the very idea that the Indians helped the Pilgrims -- well... how stupid of the Indians. Thanksgiving according to the Donald logic is a celebration of the lambs being set up to be slaughtered.

Compare and contrast this with the "it does not need to be this way" commentary on Trump's own blog in a post entitled "Corporate Corruption: If You Have to Lie, Cheat, and Steal, You're Just Not Doing it Right"

I find all this rather repugnant but reflective of the society in which we live.

And people buy apartments from this man .....

Tags
Donald Trump
apprentice
ethics
management
Leadership

Why Do We Allow Prescription Drug Advertisements?

2005-11-22T19:19:00.000-08:00

Taking a break from life in paradise (Naples of course) I flew up to Boston to spend Thanksgiving with the parents and siblings. When with my family I cannot but notice the ever present televisions (something I rarely see except right before bed at home -- though I do enjoy Law & Order and CSI). On this trip North what really has struck me is the rather ubiquitous advertising for prescription drugs.

For the life of me I cannot come up with any rational for why the government should allow this type of advertising. The cost of the ads must be enormous and they essentially promote the consumption of what by law is a restricted good. Further while the ads may heighten the public's awareness of a particular drug they do little to raise the public's understanding of the medical conditions the drugs (in theory at least) help to treat nor do they promote better health.

From a society point of view I am sure the money can be much better spent. But, of course, unless these ads were outlawed the competitive pressures faced by the drug companies means that they will continue. It would seem to be suicidal for a drug firm to voluntarily withhold advertising --especially if there existed a competing drug or if the firm had a belief that the ads were effective. This is a case where a bit more regulation (no ads aimed at the end users and not to be placed in media with a "general" audience) would benefit everyone. (I hold to this despite my formally Liberal tendencies.)

The question is how can this be accomplished.

Tags
Prescription Drugs
Advertising
ethics
management
Leadership

How Business School thinking led to the Katrina Disaster in the US

2005-11-20T20:48:00.000-08:00

The GMO dialogue was the second in my provocative talks series at the CEU Business School. The first such talk was held in October and ostensibly concerned the Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

The real title of this provocative talk was "all of life is not a project." The subject of the talk concerns the mindset which went into the problems that we now know as the Katrina disaster.

Many of the issues are the result of cultural differences between a Hungarian mindset and an American mindset. For example, Hungarians, having been exposed to generations of flooding on the river systems, are aware that the word "flood" signifies a potential disaster. By contrast, most Americans have no mental picture of what "flood" means or how a flood could affect them. As a result Americans would not ordinarily flee when someone mentions flood nor would they feel an obligation to obey public figures who suggest that an evacuation is in their best interest. In America the word which would cause a fleeing reaction is fire. And, in hindsight, perhaps the New Orleans authorities would have been better off had they announced throughout the city that the city was likely to burn in a cataclysmic fire. In that scenario, everyone would have fled.

The Katrina disaster in New Orleans was a byproduct of a category five hurricane which actually missed the city but which was followed by a storm surge. The storm surge caused floodwaters from the Mississippi River, the Gulf of Mexico, and Lake Ponchartrain to engulf the city. Much of the flooding was the result of breaches in New Orleans levee system. A significant contributing factor was the 25 year history of inadequate maintenance and development of the New Orleans embankment system.

It was MBA style thinking on the part of the public authorities led to net present value analyses of the cost expenditures required to expand the levee system so as to be able to withstand a significant storm. That same MBA style mindset suggested that the possibility of a significant storm was minor and, in true net present value analysis fashion, the benefits perceived from making such an investment seemed less worthy than the benefits to be derived from spending the money on other social goods and services.

By contrast, the Hungarian River flooding experience has led to a system of well thought through emergency preparedness, adequate delegation of requisite authority, and careful pre-positioning of needed supplies and equipment. While there existed an emergency plan in New Orleans and, in fact, the authorities had run a simulation of exactly the Katrina scenario just three years before, the factors above were sorely missed.

New Orleans and Louisiana authorities repeatedly failed to consult their emergency plan, failed to carry out the coordination steps mandated by that plan, failed to adequately delegate authority to those on the ground who could deal with the unfolding catastrophe, and were unable to foresee the need for pre-positioned equipment and supplies. Indeed, the more than 50,000 people who took refuge in the Superdome and the convention center were left without adequate food ventilation communication abilities and electricity.

Many of the emergency decisions which were made in New Orleans were made on the basis of a project management task-oriented mindset. In practice, what this meant was that an individual was to deal with a narrowly constructed problem, ignore external events and circumstances which might otherwise impact or affect their understanding of that problem, and within this narrow frame, reach for an optimal, efficient, and lowest-cost solution.

As an example, someone in the New Orleans School Department was charged with ensuring that the school bus drivers were safely evacuated from the city, and were to be within communication reach so as to be recalled once the catastrophe had passed. This person did his job extremely well. By the Saturday morning prior to the storm the school bus drivers were safely out of town. Unfortunately, it was readily apparent by Saturday launch that the school buses were needed both for immediate evacuation needs and to provide for further evacuations once the storm had passed. More than 700 school buses were parked in an open field approximately 11 feet below sea level. There were no bus drivers. There were no keys. By Tuesday there were 700 flooded buses. From a project management point of view the school bus driver dispatcher had done his job magnificently. From a dealing with the catastrophe point of view, the excellent performance of the dispatcher led to increased human suffering and misery.

Another part of the decision-making mindset involved the perception of the odds that an extreme event would occur. Americans have been continually exposed to the notion that events in their lives are distributed in accordance with what is known as the Bell curve.

In more formal terms the Bell curve is what mathematicians call the Gaussian distribution. This curve suggests that events are distributed around an average and that it is not wise to devote time energy or resources to events which appeared to be more than three standard deviations away from the average. While it is true that most Americans could not explain the Bell curve, it is equally true that they rely upon this curve in judging the world.

Catastrophes like hurricanes in New Orleans and River flooding along the Rhine and Danube are not Gaussian events. Catastrophes occur in what is known as a power law distribution. The Bell curve mindset leads to an inappropriate minimization of the risks and likelihood of catastrophe.

Lessons to be learned from examining the decision-making that contributed to Katrina include a recognition that while project management has its place, not everything in life and, especially not catastrophes, can be viewed as a project. One needs to: examine the situation one finds oneself in, recognize that there are multiple perspectives which can be taken on that situation, and then judge whether the narrow boundaries which project management demands are appropriate in the given circumstance.

Events such as Katrina illustrate the dangers involved in opting for giving efficiency and optimization a higher priority than allocating resources toward resilience and robustness. The contrast in abilities between Central European authorities who were able to evacuate people and thus prevent much suffering and the New Orleans authorities whose evacuation plans went for not and contributed to human misery is a direct result of this trade-off.

Considering situations recognizing multiple perspectives and rethinking the efficiency resilience trade-off are the take away lessons we can learn from what has come to be known as the Katrina disaster.

The powerpoint from this talk can be found at http://lissack.com/ceu1.ppt

Tags
Katrina
MBA
ethics
management
Leadership
Project Management

Buberian Dialogue and the GMO Debate

2005-11-18T18:35:00.000-08:00

I began this blog upon the urging of friends and then the success of the initial Buberian Dialogue experiment.

Will a focus on "system effects" (the impact of small changes on the functioning of an entire system Â in this case the ecosystem) and publication of associated research finally allow the GMO debate to find compromise?

Participants in a recent CEU Business School forum on the topic raised the likelihood of such of an outcome. What was highlighted was the lack of published research on the system effects of introducing GMO crops into an ecosystem. That lack of published research fuels fears of the unknown. Fears which prompt opposition.

On November 17 CEU Business School was proud to host the first Buberian dialogue in Central Europe. The dialogue was on the topic of genetically modified foods (usually referred to as "GMOs") and featured presentations by Prof. Danes Dudits, director of the Biological Research Centre of Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Mrs. Ãva Ãcs, director of the Kishantos Rural Development Centre, member of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements. Unlike most presentations of the GMO issue, this dialogue actually produced some resonance between the two sides and provoked the audience into suggesting a new road whereby compromise might be reached. The event was held as part of the CEU Business School's provocative talk series with yours truly.

Dudits began the dialogue by pointing out that the GMO process is a more time efficient and exact method of producing the very changes which farmers aim to do through selective breeding. Dudits outlined the years of research and testing that are part of any GMO release, estimating that it takes 12-19 years before a GMO crop can actually be sold in the marketplace as food.

Acs countered that much remains unknown about the system effects of the changes induced by GMOs both in the environment and in the ecological cycle. While it is true that GMO modifications involve one gene out of perhaps 30,000, what is not known is the total effects of the gene change. What happens when the modified crop is eaten? When it is disposed of? When birds and insects interact with the crop and then with the environment? In the face of the unknown she suggested that the correct policy is one of caution.

Dudits replied that there was far more research than most in the audience or on the other side of the debate knew about. But, he conceded that much of the research was with regard to the gene and the plant itself. Many system effects had gone either unreported or unexplored. By contrast, he noted that the reduction in CO2 emissions caused by the GMO crops, the reduction in required pesticide use, and the ability to better deal with drought were all system effects ignored or not acknowledged by the other (anti-GMO) side.

Acs then spoke she said as a "parent" asking how we in good conscience could expose our children to the unknown and unstudied effects of environmental change "when we had a choice?"

Both speakers highlighted the advances in the science and the sense of responsibility for the future which is implicit in the GMO debate itself. As further rounds developed, both speakers continued to emphasize the importance of research and decried the lack of biological and system knowledge which plagued most laymen's understanding of the issues. Dudits as the scientific expert portrayed the science and research as answering the relevant questions while Acs the agronomist suggested that it was the unknown and unexplored system effects which were the greatest cause for concern.

What was unique about the Buberian dialogue format was the contributions from the audience and the role that contribution played in developing the potential breakthrough. The audience featured members from both sides of the debate including representatives of prominent anti-GMO NGOs and pro-GMO Monsanto. Audience members highlighted the attention both speakers had paid to the notion of "singular events" (a single gene modification) within a complex system (the many varied interactions which together we call the ecosystem of earth). The audience proposed that the lack of published and widely disseminated research focusing on these system events holds great promise for a compromise between the pro and anti GMO groups. If the scientists were to offer meaningful studies of the system effects in language understandable to the laymen, much of the fear of the unknown generated by the anti-GMO groups could be dissipated. True dialogue about the role singular gene changes may play in our environment's complex system can raise trust in the public's perception of the safety of GMOs.

The audience contribution was a breakthrough produced in part by the unique format of the Buberian dialogue. Suggested by some private writings of the philosopher Martin Buber (of "I and Thou" fame), in this format speakers are asked to first state a position and then the audience is asked to state what the two speakers said or implied in common. The next presentations are restricted to commenting on these revealed commonalities. Several such rounds of statements and audience commentary form the dialogue, and at no point are the two speakers allowed to directly address each other or each other's positions. The Buberian dialogue at the CEU Business School was the first major Buberian forum since a series of dialogues held by the British MENSA society in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The focus on developing a public understanding of the system effects of GMO work appears to offer the possibility of re-engaging opponents to work toward an accepted and responsible GMO future. The question now is how to get such research done and published. System research will answer such questions as:

What happens when a GMO crop is disposed of compared to a "normal crop?"
How much pesticide use is actually reduced by GMO crops? Where does the reduction come from?
How much less resources do GMO crops consume? What is the effect of freeing those resources for other uses?
Can GMO crops reduce our dependence on costly irrigation systems? (One GMO tobacco plant demonstrates remarkable resilience after 19 days with no water.)
What are the energy costs of GMO crops compared to "normal" crops? If there is a reduction in energy can it be captured elsewhere in the eco-system?

As the days progress I will post more about the CEU talk series and about Buberian Dialogue.

It has to begin with something.

Tags
GMO
dialogue
ethics
management
Leadership