• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Food Distribution Post-Cold War, War, and International Borders

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
54,236
Location
Australia
In our town (Australia), we have a 'choice' of 4 supermarkets. They pretty much sell all the same brands and products (except Aldi which produces similar products under its own brands).

I've often felt rather like the Russians in the pre-Berlin-Wall-fall days' propaganda where they were lined up waiting to buy the one shipment of a product.

"How the supermarket helped America win the cold war"

https://medium.com/s/freakonomicsra...-helped-america-win-the-cold-war-59c788def3eb

That article/podcast inspired me to put some thoughts I've been having in writing.

The planet now wastes 30% of the food produced on the planet, and we are at risk of losing 85% of local strains of food plants.

Seed banks are collecting heritage seeds, but need funding.

We have more food, less choice, more inequality, less good nutrition, more waste, less forest, more malnutrition and more under-nutrition.

Don't get me started on national borders and the damage they do to peace, the environment, health, equality and in general, the planet. :mad:

For about 6 months I've been a member of an "unpackaged" food collective (to use a "communist" term) which lets us split bulk amounts of different independently grown, sustainable, international and heritage foods.

Meanwhile, the supermarkets are selling more sustainable products, and less "unhealthy" or highly-processed foods.

As Bill Gates says, the world is getting better.

But it takes time to change distribution systems, habits, and land use and food production methods.

My pet peeve is international borders. As John Lennon sang and Yoko Ono wrote:

Imagine no countries
It isn't hard to do.

Bring on the NWO!! :D:D

Borders have always amused me. (Nobody stopped me, and now I'm on a roll.)

I was born in another state, I did my first 9 years of school there, but I've never lived there.

Yep, I crossed the border (and a time zone) every day I went to school and back.

Am I "South Australian" or "Victorian"?

My mother and her mother were born in China, but they're not "Chinese". Yet if they'd been born in America, they'd be "American".

Bizarre.

"In 2019, [The World Food Program] WFP is scaling up to provide 12 million people with monthly food assistance through direct food distributions or vouchers that people can use at retailers in areas where the markets are functioning. Each family of six gets a monthly ration of wheat flour, pulses, vegetable oil, sugar and salt."
https://www.wfp.org/countries/yemen

12 million people need to be given food in Yemen.

Meanwhile (trigger alert) (pun alert) guns are being sold and given to Yemenis.

Forests are being cut down in DRC, refugees are fleeing, Lake Chad and the Aral Sea are drastically smaller.

The Murray River in Australia is shrinking and we have droughts and bushfires before the southern summer has even begun.

I could go on, with more examples of over-consumption, overproduction, poor distribution, inappropriate land use, and excess waste due to state and international trade and border disputes.

Neighbours fear neighbours due to climate change, poverty, borders, food inequality.

We can see all this from maps and data. We can administrate this better with theoretical boundaries.

Will we really need physical international boundaries, if we can feed and shelter everyone, and everyone is thriving and peaceful?
 
Will we really need physical international boundaries, if we can feed and shelter everyone, and everyone is thriving and peaceful?

"If."

Less laconically, I think borders are like money and police: If we didn't have them, the first thing we'd do is invent them.

You're not trying to solve food distribution, you're trying to solve people.
 
Well, not on a global level, but for example in Europe, isn't this the great benefit of the EU which people now take for granted? Food and other goods can now be distributed seamlessly from country to country within the EU.
 
At the same time we see separatist movements within EU countries, independence movements, people who want to withdraw from these sort of multinational organizations and limit immigration from the outside pushing in the opposite direction.

So I don't really know which side will win out in the long run but I think as long as life is better in some countries than in others, there will be people who want to migrate to where life is easier.
 
Open borders strikes me as unworkable given human nature. Much like a no money society.

John Lennon sang about imagining no countries, this is true. I’m not sure how that reflects some underlying truth, though. It’s pure idealism and wouldn’t work.

Think about it. We all have a personal border: the place we live. I am confident in saying that very close to none of us open up our homes to anyone who needs a place to sleep and a bite to eat. We lock our doors and erect fences to keep people out. We protect our neighborhoods. We live in cities. Those cities are a part of a State/Province/whatever. People from one State tend to have a common idea about how to live: no income tax here, legal pot there, etc. We can’t even get all people in one nation to agree on the right way to live. Now imagine internationally. You think the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, etc are all going to agree with Western countries (or each other) about anything much at all?

Humans are tribal and aggressive. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
 
Of course we all know why the world food program is distributing emergency food aid to Yemen. It's because there's a war there. So many other problems would be relatively simple and straightforward to solve if only we could solve people.
 
"If."

Less laconically, I think borders are like money and police: If we didn't have them, the first thing we'd do is invent them.

You're not trying to solve food distribution, you're trying to solve people.
Nope.



Open borders strikes me as unworkable given human nature. Much like a no money society.

John Lennon sang about imagining no countries, this is true. I’m not sure how that reflects some underlying truth, though. It’s pure idealism and wouldn’t work.

Think about it. We all have a personal border: the place we live. I am confident in saying that very close to none of us open up our homes to anyone who needs a place to sleep and a bite to eat. We lock our doors and erect fences to keep people out. We protect our neighborhoods. We live in cities. Those cities are a part of a State/Province/whatever. People from one State tend to have a common idea about how to live: no income tax here, legal pot there, etc. We can’t even get all people in one nation to agree on the right way to live. Now imagine internationally. You think the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, etc are all going to agree with Western countries (or each other) about anything much at all?

Humans are tribal and aggressive. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Utter myth.
 
The EU has been mentioned.

This summarises the pros and cons of China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) plan (trade/transport corridor connecting Asia, Europe, and Africa) already underway:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...ntary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/ChinasRoad

China and Europe and Australia and countries and/or regions in each have Circular Economy policies (recycling management strategies to stop the causes and effects of climate changes).

The cons of OBOR and climate change mitigation seem great if your formative years were pre-internet.

Now, technology and research lets administration of global land use and food distribution seem manageable.

Pre-Cold-War, and even now, we are influenced by ideas that treat up to a billion or so people as identical, as a monolithic entity to fear or ally with.

If that is OK, then why not 7 billion now, or 10 billion when population is predicted to peak and plateau?

I don’t have the answers but I’m enjoying the discussions and questions.
 
Competition makes for a better live style. So far, countries have been competing for immigrants. Ever heard of a "brain drain"?

Diluting the social advantage of a country might seem to not matter- the average of the world is still the average of the world. But without the tribal competition, will the eagles that do soar bring up the average? Will eaglets be motivated to soar?

The problems and solutions both come from people.
 
Modern technology has made the world much more interconnected and interdependent than at any previous time in history, thus it should be expected that the natural size of nations today should be bigger than in the past.

By "natural size" what I mean here is the size at which it is more efficient for different communities to come together into a single unit rather than stay separate. There are factors at play that tend to pull in both directions, but many of the factors that pull toward smaller size become less relevant as the flow of people, goods, and particularly information becomes easier, faster, and cheaper.

So, while I don't think we'll be getting rid of borders any time soon, I would expect groupings like the EU to become stronger (the current trend seen in Brexit, for example, is, I think an overcorrection to the speed of the process having been a little too fast), and some borders to become more porous over time.

For the sake of this question I see "a border" as a border between two nations, the border of one of those nations with another nation being a separate entity (with distinct policies). And there are of course many dimensions to the policies regarding that border. Trade is separate from immigration, and even some aspects of immigration policy are separate from other aspects. While I expect the general trend to move toward more openness, I also expect a relatively chaotic process.

I also expect that trend to stop when a new equilibrium is reached based on current technology (although further technological advancements would disturb that equilibrium and thus there may be no actual stop point).
 
Competition makes for a better live style. So far, countries have been competing for immigrants. Ever heard of a "brain drain"?

Diluting the social advantage of a country might seem to not matter- the average of the world is still the average of the world. But without the tribal competition, will the eagles that do soar bring up the average? Will eaglets be motivated to soar?

The problems and solutions both come from people.

People within countries compete with each other, and opening up opportunities for trade and migration should only make it easier for competition between regions to occur.
 
We lock our doors and erect fences to keep people out. We protect our neighborhoods. We live in cities. Those cities are a part of a State/Province/whatever.
Wasn't always like this. In Europe it used to be that there were walls around cities and the people within those cities couldn't lock their doors if they even had private spaces. Cities used to go to war against eachother. I'm sure people in those days couldn't imagine a world in which cities would one day have no visible borders at all and hundreds of thousands of people would be allowed in and out of cities freely everyday. It's funny how things that seem natural and obvious can change in a few hundred years.

In most countries, states and provinces have similarly frictionless borders, and when countries reach a level of prosperity and cooperation they tend to move in a similar direction (even if there is opposition to it). All while there is an increasing level of individualisation. I'd say keep the doors and fences, but let's get rid of the borders that were never that easy to defend anyway.
 
Ok...which part is “utter myth?”


Both theprestige and xjx388 love the idea of homo homini lupus: That the competition that state and capital subject people to and thus cause is actually the realization of their own human nature. So even when people are poisoned by industry, it's because that's what they themselves require: They want to eat garbage! And when the state kills and maims, it's only because it has to. It's not (really) the state that's violent, it's human nature, so of course the state has to resort to a little violence now and then but only to keep the violent human wolves at bay.

They attempt to make the obvious disadvantages of state actions acceptable by explaining the state as a necessary evil. The proof that the state is necessary because of human nature is part of the standard repertoire of every enlightened teacher and professor, who in this case cite the conflicts of a capitalistic society, for a change, instead of the lovable differences. This proof only works if one ignores the necessity to compete that the state imposes, along with all the economic peculiarities this involves, and declares that gratuitous mutual hostility is human nature. Man is a wolf to man, ergo some wolves have to make sure the other wolves keep quiet. This is supposed to be why it is necessary for the state to maintain order.

In everyday life, any criticism of the state’s actions which points to a discrepancy with one’s own interests is refuted simply by the remark that there must be order. Where would we end up if everything belonged to everyone? This expresses the willingness to contend against other individuals in pursuit of one’s own interest and at the same time to defend the limits that the political order forces on oneself and everyone else, a self-contradictory will which thrives in a democracy. It also flourishes in its fascist variation that disapproves of competitive self-interest, requiring in the name of true freedom that all individuals subordinate their endeavors entirely to the community.
The Democratic State (GegenStandpunkt)
 
Wasn't always like this. In Europe it used to be that there were walls around cities and the people within those cities couldn't lock their doors if they even had private spaces. Cities used to go to war against eachother. I'm sure people in those days couldn't imagine a world in which cities would one day have no visible borders at all and hundreds of thousands of people would be allowed in and out of cities freely everyday. It's funny how things that seem natural and obvious can change in a few hundred years.



In most countries, states and provinces have similarly frictionless borders, and when countries reach a level of prosperity and cooperation they tend to move in a similar direction (even if there is opposition to it). All while there is an increasing level of individualisation. I'd say keep the doors and fences, but let's get rid of the borders that were never that easy to defend anyway.



I think the problem with that is people tend to want more local control. I happen to live in a city which is part of a region made up of closely packed together cities: the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. I live in McAllen and if I drive 2 blocks from home, I’ll be in Edinburg. A few more blocks from that is Pharr, which blends into San Juan and Alamo. The other way is Mission. You can drive one street (Business 83), 46 miles or so, and pass from Mission through multiple cities all the way to Harlingen without noticing city borders. Completely frictionless.

Those municipalities retain their own governments. There has never been a move to consolidate that into one big government. We’d be the third or fourth largest city in Texas if we did. People like having local control over the rules where they live.

Texas is rather large as states go. If you can imagine Texas centered over France, it would include parts of the British Isles, Germany, Luxembourg and Italy. Imagine trying to unite those places under one set of laws. Obviously, the EU is a thing but Paris is a bit different than Milán which are both a bit different than London. Each of those localities has its own particular ordinances which reflect the views of those cities’ residents, ostensibly. They aren’t likely to agree on many things. France/England/Luxembourg/Germany are still individual countries with their own laws.

All this to reiterate that “Imagine no countries” is idealistic folly. We should strive for increased cooperation while recognizing that we will never have “One World,” in the sense of no borders.
 
In our town (Australia), we have a 'choice' of 4 supermarkets. They pretty much sell all the same brands and products (except Aldi which produces similar products under its own brands).

I've often felt rather like the Russians in the pre-Berlin-Wall-fall days' propaganda where they were lined up waiting to buy the one shipment of a product.

Get used to it. You aren't going to get more choices at the supermarket if a serious climate change agenda gets passed, you are going to get fewer, because the focus is going to be on local foods. After all, we can't spend carbon getting food halfway around the world.
 
I think the problem with that is people tend to want more local control. I happen to live in a city which is part of a region made up of closely packed together cities: the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. I live in McAllen and if I drive 2 blocks from home, I’ll be in Edinburg. A few more blocks from that is Pharr, which blends into San Juan and Alamo. The other way is Mission. You can drive one street (Business 83), 46 miles or so, and pass from Mission through multiple cities all the way to Harlingen without noticing city borders. Completely frictionless.

Those municipalities retain their own governments. There has never been a move to consolidate that into one big government. We’d be the third or fourth largest city in Texas if we did. People like having local control over the rules where they live.

Texas is rather large as states go. If you can imagine Texas centered over France, it would include parts of the British Isles, Germany, Luxembourg and Italy. Imagine trying to unite those places under one set of laws. Obviously, the EU is a thing but Paris is a bit different than Milán which are both a bit different than London. Each of those localities has its own particular ordinances which reflect the views of those cities’ residents, ostensibly. They aren’t likely to agree on many things. France/England/Luxembourg/Germany are still individual countries with their own laws.

All this to reiterate that “Imagine no countries” is idealistic folly. We should strive for increased cooperation while recognizing that we will never have “One World,” in the sense of no borders.

You're conflating local laws with borders though. You can freely move and trade between those cities you mention, even though each has control over local laws. This is because there is a higher authority (state and federal law) that specifically allows for and enables that free movement.

If you are arguing for the borders between countries becoming more akin to the borders within countries that exist between states or cities, then the above is well stated: local laws can be maintained to deal with local problems, maintain local customs, etc.

This is not to say that there is no reason to have international borders, just that the need for local laws isn't it. While I would very much like to see more international cooperation and free trade, as well as easier migration, completely getting rid of borders, even in the long term, would be crazy.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom