"And I've always been skeptical of GMOs for different reasons."
In a way, this is nothing new. When Norman Borlaug was working to save the couple of billion lives with his green revolution, also his plant breeding methods (which we now see as traditional, totally natural and acceptable) were often seen a unnatural and potentially dangerous:
"Throughout his years of research, Borlaug's programs often faced opposition by people who consider genetic crossbreeding to be unnatural or to have negative effects."
Borlaug's rebuttal definitely applies to some anti-GMO activists, who can easily be described as privileged Western elites engaging in fashionable protest.
At the same time, there are some long-term criticisms that are not mentioned here. Borlaug's methods are almost entirely reliant on fossil fuels for example, so there has long been a criticism that he simply delayed the inevitable. When the fossil fuels run out, modern agriculture will collapse.
Right now that is definitely true. It would be possible to evolve technologically to the point that it isn't, but so far that's been a slow slog.
There is a similar criticism to be made about present-day GMO tactics, and I allude to it in my OP: they buy temporary wins but are not sustainable due to selection effects and horizontal gene transfer diluting them over time. A lot of the ecological/sustainability crowd are basically arguing that we have to look for permanent solutions, not temporary gains, and that temporary gains have a way of degrading the environment in ways that make permanent solutions more difficult.
"When the fossil fuels run out, modern agriculture will collapse."
We fertilize crops, especially with nitrogen, because the triple bond in atmospheric N≡N is a tough nut to break. We use chemical engineering (in this case, high pressure and heat, google Haber-Bosch process) to fix the nitrogen from the air on behalf of the plants.
This requires energy, but any cheap energy would do, it doesn't need to be from fossil fuels.
In a way, this is nothing new. When Norman Borlaug was working to save the couple of billion lives with his green revolution, also his plant breeding methods (which we now see as traditional, totally natural and acceptable) were often seen a unnatural and potentially dangerous:
"Throughout his years of research, Borlaug's programs often faced opposition by people who consider genetic crossbreeding to be unnatural or to have negative effects."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug#Criticisms_and_h...
"I also think the issue of patents and self-reproducing organisms is a legal hell-hole."
There actually exists plant breeder's rights for traditional (non-GMO) varieties, so the situation with patents may not be so much different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights