5 of 13

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

that considers itself to be on the cutting edge of a superior civilization that is based on scientific discovery that advances technological improvement. As it concerns our health we are engaged in a battle that has two fronts. One front is the lack of balanced and complete nutrition that the products of commercial/chemical based agriculture fail to deliver. The other front is the damage to and contamination of our body by the toxic chemicals used in the production and preservation of these foods which is compounded by a myriad of other artificial environmental pollutants to which we are all exposed daily because they are an everyday part of our technologically advanced, superior civilization-artificial flavors and sweeteners, fuel emissions in the air we breath, artificial fabrics and plastics that leach out injurious chemical compounds, chemical cleaners, etc., etc. ad infinitum...

Perhaps one day science will become enlightened enough (if the profit motive were removed from its motivation) to discover that the causes for cancer, obesity, heart and circulatory conditions, thought disorders, etc. are multi-faceted and include the lack of balanced nutritional elements compounded by exposure to and contamination by toxic artificial substances.

Agreed, eating only locally produced, organic foods is in the currently existing model of production and distribution unrealistic-but who is to say that this current model of production and distribution has to remain in place? Who is to say that the individual has to be a participant in it? Nice guys might not win but neither do they have to play the game!

I suppose that, for the sake of discussion, it would not be out-of-bounds to turn the subject of this debate from "should we" to "how could we" set up a model of production and distribution that would enable all who would like to eat only locally produced, organic foods to be able to do so-but that then would be a whole other debate that would enter into the realm of production and distribution, i.e. economics and finance-is it possible? Of course it is and in conclusion it is made possible based on this economic principle:

About the time that Andrew Jackson was President of the United States of America these words were written by an economist named John Stuart Mills-even though John Stuart Mills ridiculed those who wanted a physical tie between real wealth and the artificial monetization of it (in other words, he was in the camp of the Parasites rather than the Producers) his words were herein quite realistic and objective and should, by us, be taken note of:

"The things [material resources] are there. Mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they please. They can place them at the disposal of whomever they please, and on whatever terms...Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society...The distribution of wealth, therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society. The rules by which it is determined are what the opinions and feelings of the [true] ruling portion of the community make them, and are very different in different ages and countries and might be still more different if mankind so choose..."

-of course it is possible-if we so choose...

Learn more about this author, Mike Kottke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Should people eat only locally produced, organic food? ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!