Following the "debate" on GM crops in your articles, letters and leaders, what strikes me most is the depth of misunderstanding among many who come out against the attitude of the Prince of Wales. This is because he is speaking more from the heart than from the head, his critics' hearts being more-or-less closed, they are blind to the wisdom he is speaking.

Surely we should have learned something from the mistakes we made with nuclear energy. If just a fraction of the resources that were put into developing that technology had been put instead into developing renewable sources of energy, how much further we would now be along the road to solving our energy problems, and how much safer we and coming generations would now be from the threat of nuclear accidents and radioactive contamination.

The fact is that man, despite his name (Homo sapiens), his phenomenal intelligence, and all his recently acquired knowledge, is not half as wise or knowing as many believe or like to think. Prince Charles realises this, and therefore argues for a far more precautionary approach to the development and introduction of new technologies.

If technological developments were driven by wise, rational and benign forces we would have nothing to worry about (and precaution would be taken for granted), but they are not. They are driven largely by "economic necessity" (profits, jobs etc.) and by people's not-so-enlightened self-interests. When a scientist argues that Prince Charles' attitude is blocking progress in the developing world, he neglects to mention, and perhaps does not realise himself, that he is also defending his own interests - his livelihood and social standing.

We need to understand the scientist's self-interests and fears, and how they are likely to affect his objectivity. Scientists are not the objective, rational beings they like to see themselves as - certainly not where their own interests are concerned.

The crux of the problem is that "economic necessity" forces developments and the introduction of new technologies, regardless of sustainability and potential risks. It is this "forced" development which is the real
threat. But it is built into the system. We are going to have to change it, and some of the values it is based on.

We need to get away from our sacred cow complex and start discussing how  we can change the system, so that companies and scientists are not forced to pursue developments that are harmful (e.g. tobacco industry),
risky (e.g. GM crops) or non-sustainable (e.g. individual motorisation).