The debate around industrial agriculture and GM crops is now reaching a culmination in the media. Famous people either speak against industrial farming and lose points in the media for doing it, or promote it as the solution to all of our problems, which scores high among lobbyists and food corporations. One gent who recently took sides and was later flamed for it, was Prince Charles:

In a statement setting the Prince against politicians who believe GM foods will be crucial to feeding under-nourished populations in the developing world, he said: "What we should be talking about is food security, not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand."

His belief was backed up by Mike Childs, the campaign director for Friends of the Earth. "GM crops will not solve the food crisis - and forging ahead with an industrialised farming system will continue to fail people and the environment around the world," Mr Childs said.

"If we go down this path I think we will put this country at risk. There could be a period of great difficulty in the next 10 or 20 years," Mr Holden said. "No evidence has emerged from the first round of GM crops of any public benefits. They have actually increased pesticide use in the farms that have used them."

Corrupt has previously documented the arguments for GM crops made by its proponents and exposed them as poor excuses for large industrial complexes to overthrow our national food supplies and turning them into a geopolitical weapon. Columnists such as this one are simply confused people who, without knowing it, promote more industrial totalitarianism under the food corporations:

It is an indictment of our society that, despite huge scientific advances in the last century, particularly in the production of food, millions of people, perhaps hundreds of millions, do not get enough to eat. The principal culprit is the Green movement, in its many species or fanaticisms. The Prince of Wales, who might be described as the most prominent Green man, has recently drawn attention to the destructive power of his ideology by attacking the growing of genetically modified crops, perhaps the largest step forward ever taken by mankind to reduce the cost of basic foodstuffs, and to increase their production and worldwide availability. I imagine if the Greens had lived in the 18th century they would have attacked the innovators who launched the agricultural revolution in England, which preceded the industrial one later in the century, and prevented mass starvation and chronic famine when the population rose sharply at the same time.

This columnist misses out on the essential, which is that we cannot possibly feed the entire world population (6,7+ billion, and growing) with food, with or without GM crops, and therefore it's a poor argument to force the third world into a dependence relationship upon Western industrial food powers to survive the day. Food may have become cheaper to produce, but we're also left with more pesticide, increased health risks, and a centralization of food production, which leads us back into the hamster wheelof globalization. But in the world of liberal humanism, all that matters is the moral choice of the dominant paradigm: I said what the Man told me to say.

The gap between our moral paradigm and reality is left wide open, and only clear-minded individuals recognize that we need to change our morals so that they fit in with realistic expectations of how to solve the fundamental environmental problems we face today (not the other way around: trying to impose our neurotic moral fantasies upon reality, for the sake of escaping the illnesses of the world and appear hip among social circles). Here's one man who has figured this out and is teaching a new generation of Americans to pay attention to the real world again:

More people and same amount of resources don't add up in the long run. Although he doesn't outright say it, we all know what he would like to say: we need some war and famine to reduce the number of useless people on this planet. In fact, we might welcome some chaos in the world, because it would disrupt our moral hypocrisy and force us to reconsider a different path for our civilization. Just like Russia provoked us into remembering what happens when you leave a boiling pan on the stove for too long, nature's own work of destruction is going to become the next wake-up call. And considering the situation today, we might just need it.