Kruse Kronicle

Miracles We Take For Granted

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

The Independent Institute: Miracles We Take For Granted

I am writing this post on Sunday evening, and I have just finished my supper. For dessert, I had a fresh nectarine with vanilla ice cream. It was heavenly. …

…As I enjoyed this heaven-sent delight, I thought to myself:  This fruit was grown in Chile. Here I sit, in my home in southeast Louisiana, in a rural area, fifty miles from the nearest big city. Yet I am enjoying the fruit (literally in this case) of someone’s labors in a land many thousands of miles away. It’s not the first time I’ve done so, either, and I fully expect to repeat this experience many times in the future, should fortune decree that my life continue. Indeed, this kind of consumption is a daily occurrence for me, as it is for nearly everyone else in this country.

Yet, how often do we pause to reflect on the near-miraculousness of this manner of living? Fresh fruits delivered in the middle of winter even to remote places all over this country! Who arranges this vast and complex distribution so successfully? How is it even possible to organize all the people who had to cooperate peacefully in order to make my splendid dessert possible. I have no idea who planted the fruit trees, tended them for years until they matured, picked the fruit, packaged and transported it through successive stages until it was ultimately placed on display in the grocery store I patronize. Of course, every one of these unknown people had to have the cooperation, directly or indirectly, of thousands of others, who manufactured the equipment and materials they used, produced the necessary fuels and lubricants, kept the accounts, insured the properties, arranged the payments, and so on and on and on. …

… Oh, yes. For my divine nectarine, I paid, as I recall, about 60 cents.

Comments

6 responses to “Miracles We Take For Granted”

  1. Wes Vander Lugt Avatar
    Wes Vander Lugt

    As amazing as nectarines are in the middle of the winter, is it really enjoyable to eat something that has traveled halfway across the world, engineered to still be fresh when it reaches our table and guzzling a lot of gas to get there? Would there not be more joy in eating local fruit that is in season, or that has been canned, frozen, or dried to be enjoyed in the off season?

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Wes, I suppose almost any product I used to illustrate the beauty of markets could be taken to task for one reason or another. Let’s not miss the incredible dynamic organism that the market creates.
    I don’t share your enthusiasm for organic locally grown produce. I don’t oppose any one who wants to live and shop according that criteria either.
    We’ve been “engineering” food across recorded human history. Recent developments have shrunk the amount of cropland needed to feed a person and the preserves more habitats than would otherwise be preserved. This example uses nectarines as an example but markets also move important food stuffs around the world to places with more limited and less productive climates. Meanwhile, it is very often the poor in emerging nations who benefit by produce being shipped to our country.
    It is a testament to our affluence that we now have the option of choosing organic local food stuffs but I don’t see at as an answer to global concerns.

    Reply
  3. Wes Vander Lugt Avatar
    Wes Vander Lugt

    Thanks for your response, Michael. I am new to many of these discussions, but I have done some reading that prompts some other questions to follow up on your response.
    First, do not industrial farming methods that aim to produce large export crops contribute to soil erosion, salinization, desertification, and loss of soil fertility that will eventual be detrimental to the poor in developing countries? It may require less farmland, but is it really sustainable agriculture?
    Second, is it really the poor who benefit from large export crops? Or is it more the processors, brokers, shippers, supermarkets, and oil companies? More often than not, do not the poor usually end up as laborers for a multinational company?
    I would appreciate your thoughts on these matters and how they relate to the global economy, especially the plight of the poor, as the organization we work with is directly connected to the rural poor in Mexico.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I don’t think I can answer all those questions in any succinct manner. It is hard to make sweeping statements about the best policies because there is considerable variation from nation to nation. Issues of governance have a big impact on what can be done well. And I would argue that in some emerging markets a focus on produce for local markets probably is the right option.
    We are no longer in a First, Second and Third World reality. The Second world (Communism) has all but dissolved and there are no longer rich and poor countries but a range of countries on a continuum from rich to poor.
    Yes, there has been abuse by multinational corporations and the still is, but it is not monolithic. Multinationals nearly always pay more than local jobs do. There is spillover into the local economy of technology and the knowledge of how to use it. It becomes an indirect means of transferring human capital. Furthermore, a rapidly growing percentage of multinationals are from places like India, China, and Brazil. I believe, on balance, around the world, workers and the poor are better off because of multi-nationals, not worse.
    As to who benefits, if there is a reasonable semblance of property rights, free press, infrastructure and good government, the poor win from trade even with export agriculture. That “if” is a big one. The challenge is how to engage nations that are trying to move down this path. It creates challenging dilemmas.
    As to agricultural practices, forget industrial farming or genetically engineered food, there are vast regions in Africa and Asia that have yet adopt more productive techniques that involve neither of these changes. Increasing food productivity has to be priority.
    The challenge is to protect the environment while continuing to add another two billion people to the planet over the next thirty or forty years. After that time, it seems likely we will begin to see depopulation and our challenges will change.
    While we do all we can to limit the negative side affects of any measure we must also feed the world right now. If the U. S. were to try to grow the same number of crops using organic methods alone, we would likely need to convert the entire land area east of the Mississippi to cropland. That just isn’t going to happen.
    My point is that as we confront challenges, we adapt. We can’t simply project current farming knowledge into the future and predict an impact. Purely focusing on feeding the hungry by any means may be too destructive to the environment. But pursing methods that have no realistic hope of feeding the world are not an option in my book either.
    Would you be interested in sharing what organization you are working with? I’m always interested in learning what folks are up to.
    Sorry for the rambling.

    Reply
  5. Wes Vander Lugt Avatar
    Wes Vander Lugt

    Thanks for taking the time to provide some perspective, Michael. I have to admit, I am out of my league with some of these discussions, but it does seem that the US, with it’s enormous crops of corn and soybeans, could be doing a lot better at distributing good, nutritious food to people who really need it, rather than converting all of that food to corn syrup and other products that sell but are not contributing to overall health and sustainability.
    Also interesting is the fact that subsidized corn in the US is a huge factor in the dying of rural family farms here in Mexico, because the markets here get saturated with cheap, US subsidized corn.
    We are currently working for Armonía Ministries, which is based in Mexico City but also has projects in Oaxaca. You can visit our blog at wsvanderlugt.wordpress.com, where we have a page describing Armonía and what they do. One of the aspects of their work is providing education for rural students who come from very impoverished areas in Mexico, and who desire to return to their villages to be leaders and agents of change.
    Thanks again for your interaction.

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    “Also interesting is the fact that subsidized corn in the US is a huge factor in the dying of rural family farms here in Mexico, because the markets here get saturated with cheap, US subsidized corn.”
    That subsidization, combined with other protectionist policies, in US and Europe keeps out produce grown in many emerging nations. It denies them a source of income and it is extremely unjust.
    Thanks for the blog link! I look forward to learning more.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading