Alan, the gist of your skepticism seems to be "Embrace the dystopia!" -- and I refuse to make that my operating principle.

This certainly isn't an "easy" problem to solve. But it is solvable.

Let's deconstruct your points, most of which are factually valid.

1.) You're absolutely correct that younger generations are averse to spending their lives in laborious agricultural jobs. Part of that can be mitigated by new technology and the new jobs that would arise from more efficient agri-tech (as I described in the article). Another untapped variable is the new sectors that can crop up adjacent to food production. Maine is one of the few states where the average age of its farmers is getting YOUNGER...yet, the business-as-usual crowd seems keen on lambasting Chellie Pingree and her ilk as somehow having some myopic agenda of pro-organic bias. Maybe if more of us listened to Congresswoman Pingree and the type of legislation she's trying to push, we wouldn't be on the verge of a food crisis.

2.) Where California is making errors with overregulation, that simply means there is more opportunity for other states and regions to innovate and compete with California's dominance in agriculture. That won't be realistic, though, unless we keep honing and improving the science behind it.

3.) Competition is ultimately what will curb the hyperinflation of food prices. All of these policies I'm endorsing are explicitly intended to promote and expand competition amongst food sources across regions.

If you just slouch your shoulders and say, "Prices are going to keep spiking every month for the next 12 months, and that will give way to a right-wing hegemony that takes us even further backwards" -- then you are contributing to the self-fulfilling prophecy, which thereby makes you part of the problem.