If eyes are the window to the human soul, a company’s mission statement is the corporate equivalent. A business’s deepest values, beliefs, its purpose for existing, how it wishes to be perceived by the outside world – all is reflected in the mission statement.
I am always troubled when I come across a business’s mission statement which is clearly phony, or bland, or is filled with jargon and makes no sense at all. Worse yet are corporations which have no mission statement at all; they care only about generating wealth for their shareholders. They shirk their responsibilities to the communities in which they operate and employ people, and care not a jot for fighting injustices.
How inspirational it is then when one reads Monsanto’s mission statement:
Monsanto is a global modern agriculture company. We develop products and tools to help farmers around the world grow crops while using energy, water, and land more efficiently. We believe innovation has the potential to bring humanity’s needs in balance with the resources of our planeT
Note well: nowhere in the above is there any reference to ‘controlling the world’s food supply’, ‘creating dangerous “Frankenfoods”‘, ‘producing carcinogenic fertilisers and pesticides’, ‘making obscene amounts of money’, or ‘destroying small farmers’ – all baseless accusations which have been levelled against Monsanto by the ranks of the paranoid who spew their conspiracy theories on internet forums. Fortunately, in a totally uncoordinated response, many ordinary people are now going online en masse to rebut the tin-foil crowd. Thanks to these unpaid concerned citizens, no criticism against Monsanto is left unanswered.
A world that is struggling to adapt to the needs of a rapidly growing global population requires strong corporate leadership as exemplified by Monsanto. The ‘innovation’ and ‘efficiency’ which Monsanto brings to the food chain are essential if we are ever to ‘bring humanity’s needs in balance with the resources of our planet’.
Alas, not all food producers are ‘efficient’ or ‘innovative’. Take the ranks of small farmers the world over, for example. In general, they are shameless freeloaders who actively promote the despicable practice of ‘agricultural incest’. We refer to the habit some farmers have of saving and using seeds which are taken from plants grown from ‘parent’ seeds. Their only excuse is that ‘this is how it has been done for millennia’ as though progress is something to be avoided. Just imagine: if the same argument had been made to justify the continued practice of writing with quill and ink on parchment, we would never have had the computer!
Despite attacks from people who should know better, Monsanto fights agricultural incest. It does this by creating genetically modified sterile seeds, or else getting its customers to volunteer never to save and replant seeds grown from Monsanto grown plants. It takes time and (regrettably) the occasional litigation, but people fit into line eventually.
It is time for us to face the inconvenient truth about food production – we are already struggling to feed the many billions of mouths on this planet; with continued prolific birth-rates, the food shortage will only get worse. Drastic action is therefore needed to stave off a starvation crisis of epic proportions.
The United Nations and leading governments can save countless lives by working hand-in-hand with food giants like Monsanto. The world can benefit from Monsanto’s ‘efficiency’ and ‘innovation’ by willingly allowing Monsanto to control an ever growing share of food production. This is not only common sense, but also has its basis in simple macroeconomic theory of comparative advantage.
History shows that small farmers and private businesses will not willingly cede their profits and power to Monsanto, however, even in the face of global catastrophe. For this reason, a creative solution is needed.
Our suggestion – which we believe is unique among accredited think-tanks – is for Monsanto be allowed to buy the sun. Our rationale for this radical idea is clear and based on simple science. Since sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis and thus the growing of crops, no other food producers would be permitted to use sunlight without first paying a royalty or commission to Monsanto.
Burdened with having to pay for sunlight, we believe this additional cost would encourage small farmers to become more efficient and innovative. If they do not, they will go out of business and thus pass their agricultural land to a more efficient and innovative producer. This can only benefit the hungry.
In time, as the accredited cusodian of the sun, we can envisage Monsanto’s innovation benefiting humanity in other ways. Since we know that sunlight is harmful to people and causes skin cancer, Monsanto could devise some sort of ‘sunlight-filter’ in the Earth’s atmosphere. This is clearly years away for now, but the possibilities are endless.
We will need a panel of expert economists to decide what the purchase price of the sun should be, to whom proceeds should be paid (our suggestion: the United Nations on behalf of all humanity) and how sunlight should be regulated for private consumption (‘free use’ at first, provided it is on a non-profit basis).
We only get one chance to save humanity. It’s time to trust Monsanto.