My friend Dave mentioned, what I suspect many people who have seen my most recent facebook 'update thing' [JT is thinking that Prince Charles puts the c**t in countryside], may have been contemplating. And since i took the time to write him a fairly long winded letter about my motivation, I thought I might as well make it an open letter. So here it is, my first blog; if you are particularly unfortunate, I may even write some more, when sufficiently riled:
Hi Dave
lots of people do [like Prince Charles and agree with his scientifically illiterate views on Genetic Improvement], and lots of people think he talks sense. Which is why I decided, with much fore thought to make such a striking - and, I agree, offensive - sentence.
Personally, he angered me to the point of literal wall thumping.
I've never been a fan, but in his recent diatribe against genetic modification our not-so-bonny chump Charlie is merely demonstrating anew his ignorance.
The yields from organics being what they are, they couldn't sustain even a fraction of the earth's present population; but we need to produce enough food for the future and a massively growing humankind. Yes, it would undoubtedly be better if that population weren't expanding so much, but there isn't a lot we can do about that. Unless perhaps we return to Jonathan Swift’s ingenious solution of the poor eating their own offspring.
Without the green revolution, which HRH says was only a short term solution - but is still currently all we have - millions and millions of people - perhaps a billion, some experts say - would have starved to death; mainly in Asia, which no longer belongs to us, so perhaps Charlie wouldn't be too bothered...
Organic farming is a farce, only a solution to salve the underdeveloped consciences of a tiny minority of the worlds wealthiest who are unintelligent or uninformed enough to go on instinct rather than facts.
As for 'going against nature'; not a single one of the grains we eat has much in common with the tiny wild grass they were bred from; so much so that until the recent advances in our understanding of genetics we had no idea which were even related. They have all been engineered for disease and pest resistance and greater yield; we just have the ability to do it faster and better now. If we are lucky, we may just manage the required improvements before poorer nations face mass starvation. Unfortunately science has never made its argument very well, believing that the facts would speak for themselves. And in a media driven age, they simply don't. Particularly against such a strong visceral instinct that 'meddling' is wrong. Driven, weirdly, by a coalition of green groups - when in actual fact enhancing plants could lead to a massive reduction in pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, hugely reducing environmental impact - and religious groups, who think that it is wrong to mess with god's domain; despite the fact that we have been doing precisely that since long before any of our currently fashionable gods were a glint in a madman's eye. Prince Charles, sadly, epitomizes both: the unknowledgeable enviroMENTALIST (in which I separate him from the many well researched) and the god-botherer who of course believes it is wrong to question god's plan: after all, it was god who put him in charge of us.
He is also, however, a hypocrite of the ultimate degree. He turns off his light bulb while we pay him ten million pounds a year which could be spent on any number of worthy causes and he makes a fortune from projects that benefit from his name and position. He plays at being a farmer and romaticises the poverty of those who have to farm to survive. Of course, starvation doesn't mean much to someone who has 9 eggs cooked for him every morning so that one will be perfect and throws the other 8 away; a prince who has a tantrum if his tea isn't on the table at the right time; who screamed at his butler because the toothpaste wasn't pre-squeezed onto his tooth brush; who flies to accept an environmental award with an entourage of fifty. He is a petulant childish bore, and I owe him no allegiance.
But even if I did, he in any case breaks the tradition and bond of the crown: do you know what the Queen thinks about GM? Abortion? Immigration? No! Because her job, her role, the thing we pay her and her extended family vast sums of money for, is to keep her opinions to herself and not influence politics. If she breaks that agreement then the monarchy would have to end. Charles breaks it regularly with impunity, but only about his particular bugbears.
Isn't it funny how a man who grew up, at the tax payers' expense, in Britain's most beautiful houses and is one of the country's largest organic farmers only feels able to speak out on two subjects: architecture and GM crops. If he were a politician he would be rightly condemned for having a serious conflict of interest, as it is he seems to be being applauded. I would have a lot more respect for him if he ever used his influence on anything other than his personal hobbies. It would genuinely combat hunger and also help fight the spread of HIV if the 'Defender of Faiths' could try and influence the Vatican to change its family planning policy, for example.
I suspect, many people, like you, thought my 'update' line was out of line. But if I have changed any minds, or even drawn a little more attention to the subject, I'll be happy. I'm not running for president. Sadly, neither is Charles...
On a lighter note, the monkey said yesterday that you were thinking of coming over. It would be great to see you.
your friend, The Right Dishonourable, JT.
Hi Dave
lots of people do [like Prince Charles and agree with his scientifically illiterate views on Genetic Improvement], and lots of people think he talks sense. Which is why I decided, with much fore thought to make such a striking - and, I agree, offensive - sentence.
Personally, he angered me to the point of literal wall thumping.
I've never been a fan, but in his recent diatribe against genetic modification our not-so-bonny chump Charlie is merely demonstrating anew his ignorance.
The yields from organics being what they are, they couldn't sustain even a fraction of the earth's present population; but we need to produce enough food for the future and a massively growing humankind. Yes, it would undoubtedly be better if that population weren't expanding so much, but there isn't a lot we can do about that. Unless perhaps we return to Jonathan Swift’s ingenious solution of the poor eating their own offspring.
Without the green revolution, which HRH says was only a short term solution - but is still currently all we have - millions and millions of people - perhaps a billion, some experts say - would have starved to death; mainly in Asia, which no longer belongs to us, so perhaps Charlie wouldn't be too bothered...
Organic farming is a farce, only a solution to salve the underdeveloped consciences of a tiny minority of the worlds wealthiest who are unintelligent or uninformed enough to go on instinct rather than facts.
As for 'going against nature'; not a single one of the grains we eat has much in common with the tiny wild grass they were bred from; so much so that until the recent advances in our understanding of genetics we had no idea which were even related. They have all been engineered for disease and pest resistance and greater yield; we just have the ability to do it faster and better now. If we are lucky, we may just manage the required improvements before poorer nations face mass starvation. Unfortunately science has never made its argument very well, believing that the facts would speak for themselves. And in a media driven age, they simply don't. Particularly against such a strong visceral instinct that 'meddling' is wrong. Driven, weirdly, by a coalition of green groups - when in actual fact enhancing plants could lead to a massive reduction in pesticides and nitrogen fertilizers, hugely reducing environmental impact - and religious groups, who think that it is wrong to mess with god's domain; despite the fact that we have been doing precisely that since long before any of our currently fashionable gods were a glint in a madman's eye. Prince Charles, sadly, epitomizes both: the unknowledgeable enviroMENTALIST (in which I separate him from the many well researched) and the god-botherer who of course believes it is wrong to question god's plan: after all, it was god who put him in charge of us.
He is also, however, a hypocrite of the ultimate degree. He turns off his light bulb while we pay him ten million pounds a year which could be spent on any number of worthy causes and he makes a fortune from projects that benefit from his name and position. He plays at being a farmer and romaticises the poverty of those who have to farm to survive. Of course, starvation doesn't mean much to someone who has 9 eggs cooked for him every morning so that one will be perfect and throws the other 8 away; a prince who has a tantrum if his tea isn't on the table at the right time; who screamed at his butler because the toothpaste wasn't pre-squeezed onto his tooth brush; who flies to accept an environmental award with an entourage of fifty. He is a petulant childish bore, and I owe him no allegiance.
But even if I did, he in any case breaks the tradition and bond of the crown: do you know what the Queen thinks about GM? Abortion? Immigration? No! Because her job, her role, the thing we pay her and her extended family vast sums of money for, is to keep her opinions to herself and not influence politics. If she breaks that agreement then the monarchy would have to end. Charles breaks it regularly with impunity, but only about his particular bugbears.
Isn't it funny how a man who grew up, at the tax payers' expense, in Britain's most beautiful houses and is one of the country's largest organic farmers only feels able to speak out on two subjects: architecture and GM crops. If he were a politician he would be rightly condemned for having a serious conflict of interest, as it is he seems to be being applauded. I would have a lot more respect for him if he ever used his influence on anything other than his personal hobbies. It would genuinely combat hunger and also help fight the spread of HIV if the 'Defender of Faiths' could try and influence the Vatican to change its family planning policy, for example.
I suspect, many people, like you, thought my 'update' line was out of line. But if I have changed any minds, or even drawn a little more attention to the subject, I'll be happy. I'm not running for president. Sadly, neither is Charles...
On a lighter note, the monkey said yesterday that you were thinking of coming over. It would be great to see you.
your friend, The Right Dishonourable, JT.
posted by jontrig at
2:41 pm
|
3 comments
