ABSTRACT
Gap bridging and emergency aid may help the world to muddle on for some time, but in the end the appetite of the affluent and the fertility of the poor may combine to cause a global crisis. The deadlocked debate about high-tech or low-tech methods falsely suggests that technical solutions will suffice for ensuring global food security. However, the political classes of the old strong countries can only really contribute to global food security if they transform their own thinking. The only significant organized forces that confront politicians on food and biomass economy issues are corporate lobbies and the environmental movement. A hegemonic transition phase involves increased risks of international conflicts, but a diminishing influence of the United States also creates opportunities for international cooperation that could steer the global biomass economy in a more secure direction. Economic development is associated with a widening of reciprocity norms, empathy and trust, but that widening occurs in circles.
