The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

188 the world according to monsantoone of the very few interviews he granted, published in the Harvard BusinessReview on January 1, 1997, shortly after the reelection of Bill Clinton, he explainedwith some vigor how GMOs represented the solution for the futureof the planet. After pointing out that 1.5 billion people were living in “conditionsof abject poverty” and that the population would “double by sometimearound 2030,” he launched into an almost messianic diatribe on theconsequences facing humanity. “It’s a world of mass migration and environmentaldegradation at an unimaginable scale. At best, it means the preservationof a few islands of privilege and prosperity in a sea of misery andviolence. ...The whole system has to change. There’s a huge opportunity ofreinvention. ...At Monsanto, we are trying to invent some new businessesaround the concept of environmental sustainability. ...Current agriculturalpractice isn’t sustainable: we’ve lost something on the order of 15 percent ofour topsoil over the last twenty years or so, irrigation is increasing the salinityof the soil, and the petrochemicals we rely on aren’t renewable. Mostarable land is already under cultivation. Attempts to open new farm land arecausing severe ecological damage. So in the best case, we have the sameamount of land to work with and twice as many people to feed. It comesdown to resource productivity. ...The conclusion is that new technology isthe only alternative.” 26Then Shapiro entered onto the philosophical portion of his presentation.Biotechnology, in his view, was an “information technology” that made itpossible to replace the use of raw materials and energy, harmful to the environment,with a sophisticated use of genetic information. “Using informationis one of the ways to increase productivity without abusing nature. Aclosed system like the Earth’s can’t withstand a systematic increase of materialthings, but it can support exponential increases of information andknowledge. If economic development means using more stuff, then thosewho argue that growth and environmental sustainability are incompatibleare right. . . . But sustainability and development might be compatible if youcould create value and satisfy people’s needs by increasing the informationcomponents of what’s produced and diminishing the amount of stuff.” 27To illustrate his argument, Shapiro took the example of pesticides, 90 percentof which are dispersed into the environment at the moment of their application:“If we put the right information in the plant we use less stuff andincrease productivity. ...Information technology will be our most powerfultool.”