it's a whale fish

The Tyee, which I thought was solely an election blog, is actually not.

I looked at it today and found this article: 100 Mile Diet.

Premise, if you don't wish to read the article, is that the authors, a couple (I think) from Vancouver decided to only eat food grown in a 100 mile radius from their house. It was tough at times, but they got through it.

The main reason for this? Fossil fuel consumption. Eating foods grown miles away from you causes a large amount of pollution to be emitted by the trucks, trains and boats transporting the food. Okay, sounds good.

An important question, the question one always must ask, is what happens when everyone does it? It is all fine and dandy to have your own little project, to make a point (and it is a very good point), but I believe that it is untenable for the population at large if we maintain a need to have all of our food made for us.

Okay, so the problem is cost. We want the cheapest food possible. With economies of scale as they are, the cheapest food is often going to come from far away. With economies of scale, it is always going to be cheaper to have someone else produce your food than produce it yourself.

Cost is, in fact, always the problem. The 100 mile rule could be used for almost everything, but the economies of scale for electronics and furniture is huge. The problem is that the economies of scale for food is probably about the same. On the 100 mile diet blog they say that costs did skyrocket. And they hadn’t yet had to deal with the incredible demand put on the farmers that would ensue if we all chose to buy locally.

So, what is the problem? Our desire to be happy and the fact that this desire is so closely related to what we have/own. As much as people like to bandy about the idea that friends and family are the most important things a person can have (and that is true), it does not take into account the strain on said relationships that can result from needing to overwork, which is a very real problem if you remove economies of scale. (Although I have read recently that the high divorce rate now is related to the fact that people are so privileged now that they expect a happy marriage as opposed to the supportive marriage that existed up until most recently – with that in mind, family may become better when people have less because there will be more mutual (and necessary) support)

We can try to buy more locally, yes, (we can develop small economies of scale) but ultimately we need to develop better transportation methods, better fuels and better energy sources. While two young and unencumbered people may be able to do the 100 mile diet, I don’t think it tenable for the entire population.

I think food is much too cheap (most things are much too cheap) so it may be the case that, when true costs (i.e. the human suffering costs I referred to a few posts ago) are taken into account, that locally grown foods are more beneficial. Although I still think that, even if prices increased to allow foreign farmers (and all producers) a fair return, it will still be overall beneficial to have a world market. So, alternative energy is the key and maintaining a world market.

One thing I liked from the blog was this:

“A friend of ours has a theory that a night spent making jam–or in his case, perogies–with friends will always be better a time than the latest Hollywood blockbuster. We’re convinced.”

I am convinced too. Stupid movies. Although I finally bought The Wrong Guy. I think a few of my friends and I have definitely bonded over that.

I think I just experienced something of religious proportions.