The Future of Food - Pt 1 The Challenge

Let's take a trip into the future.  You can stay right there on your couch or chair.  We aren't going far, only a scant 50 years or so.  In fact, we can start just 3 years from now and see what food challenges we might expect to face.  How about, greater economic pressure on poor regions to meet the rising cost of staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn.  As early as this time, experts expect a doubling in the food demand due to increased populations.  It was not so long ago that the population estimate was at 6 billion, it is now over 7 billion; 77,000 net population growth per day!  This will see a 40% increase in food costs for the wealthiest countries and will see 40 million more humans thrown into starvation in just 3 years, according to The Future of Food documentary.

Unrest in the Arab world is likely to continue as food costs climb and the economy remains stagnant.  The Arab spring was partially a response to the rising cost of staples after the ill conceived idea of diverting more corn and grain to ethanol production and spiking the prices in hopes of a market bubble (oh! how Wall Street loves a bubble).  With an additional 40 million humans, mostly in poorer regions, thrust into potential starvation, the expectation of stability in the Arab and Sub-Saharan regions, as well as Asia, seems foolhardy.

Despite the housing market collapse in the US and parts of Canada and Europe, urbanization of land continues, and will continue, to grow as housing demands try to keep pace with population growth.  Most of this growth will occur in countries already struggling to house and feed their population.  As those countries run out of land they will inevitably look to migrate to areas with plenty of land and Canada, the US and parts of South America will see dramatic increases in both legal and illegal immigration.  Not only will their be a greater demand for food, there will be less land in which to grow it on.

But, 2015 will only be a warm up for the issues to come as we climb toward a world population of 10 billion (that's 10, 000,000,000).  Over the next 50 years humans will have to produce as much food as they have produced in their entire agricultural history.  According to Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most regions can expect to see volatile changes over the next 50 years.  Including: 4 times more drought conditions in Kenya, added impact on the already stressed Maasai Mara region and its inhabitants who struggle to find water in the dry season.  We will see continued desertification of Africa and Asia and will start to see increased desertification in the southern United States, Mexico and Australia.  Coastal regions will begin to divert huge sums of money to shoring up their coasts to prevent erosion and flooding of the worlds most inhabited cities - e.g. Tokyo, New York, London - due to rising sea levels.  All of this will place a great deal of pressure on the fresh water supplies around the world and will make water the new oil, but it will be a resource that the countries who have it will need to fight to keep; you can't simply look for alternatives to water like you can for oil and gas.

Water shortages around the globe are causing governments to take extreme measures to find sources.  Traditionally, peoples in the driest regions of the globe used wells to tap into the large resource of ground water; but increased demand for water has meant digging wells deeper and deeper resulting in water that is saltier and of inferior quality for humans and plants.  Farms use an enormous amount of water to produce our food, whether it is grain, vegetable or meat, much of that water is wasted in many ways.  As the temperature around the globe rises, the hottest and driest areas can see upwards of 60% evaporation of water used for irrigation.  Additionally, as these drier, poorer regions try to increase their economies through agricultural trade, much of that water leaves their land for good, locked in the produce that is shipped to more arable countries.

One of the predictions of climate change and global warming is an increase in the number of as well as the intensity of severe weather events.  Thus, we can expect to see volatility in the grain markets, markets which contribute the largest portion of calories to the human diet, as weather instability keeps farmers guessing as to what grains to cultivate year to year.  Each grain type thrives in different conditions and withers in other conditions.  Add to this the expected and inevitable climb in oil prices and food prices - which rely heavily on oil for everything from cultivation to harvest to packaging to delivery - and experts predict that in 50 years more wars will be fought over food then any other reason.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba received cheap, subsidized oil for use in agriculture and delivery of products to Soviet friendly nations.  Since then, oil supplies are 50% lower and new ways of farming have had to be found.  Cuba, and similar countries looking to stave off starvation, have had to resort to more biodiverse forms of food production to feed its people.  This may seem like a positive on the surface, but the result is greater stripping of the forests to make room for more farm land resulting in increased greenhouse gases, greater soil erosion and disruption to the natural water cycle.  Multiply this by the millions of acres that will be affected when oil supplies reach a critically low level and the world will be in a desperate state.

In addition to rising environmental costs a model like that in Cuba would require a greater number of farm workers thus contributing to further price increases and potential human rights abuses as farmers struggle to keep food costs down at the expense of those labourers.  Finding a happy medium between labour and technology would mean converting farm equipment to biofuels. But, here too, we find as many problems as answers:  more grain being diverted from the food chain would put greater cost pressure on the food system.  In India, a 10% increase in grain costs would result in 40 million more thrown into poverty.

Already, a large number of Indians have been displaced to meet the demands of its biofuels program.  The jatropha plant was hailed as a miracle plant for the biofuels industry due to its high percentage of oil content and energy levels.  Yet, this plant can be used for nothing but biofuels and in India this has caused many of the poorest inhabitants to be displaced and left to find alternative food sources in a country already struggling to feed its people.  As vehicles take more grain from the hungry poor, food instability will lead to insecurity for the west.  With the constant demand for alternative fuels and the desire of the poorest regions to find resources to sell to energy hungry developed nations, conflicts between the haves and have-nots in developing countries will inevitably spill over to those developed nations.

Despite the growing number of hungry in places like India, they and China and Brazil, are actually getting wealthier as a whole.  With this wealth has come a growing middle class  and the demand for a more western diet consisting of more meat proteins.  The developed world already consumes 80 kg of meat products per person per year.  India, which is running out of arable land, is home to 10% of the world's cattle and demand is rising.  In China, in 50 years, meat consumption will have doubled what it is today and it has already doubled what it was only 20 years ago.  The production of these meat products, poultry, lamb, pork and beef requires more land and grain to be diverted for feed, more water for irrigation and more oil for transport.  The diets of the wealthiest nations are placing even more extreme pressure on the food supply system not to mention an increase in methane gas, a very large contributor to greenhouse gases.  With the demand for meat increasing (and especially for grass fed beef), we are seeing a depletion of the world's rain forests as land is cleared to make room for more pastures.

So, seafood seems to be the answer, right?  Why not?  Good meat protein with full amino acid source, heart healthy omega 3 from cold water fish, and no diverting of land.  Great.  Except that the greatest number of people in the world already eat fish and by 2048, many experts predict, the worlds fish stocks will have collapsed.  For many reasons, our oceans are already coming under intense pressures and traditional fishing cultures are disappearing faster than honest politicians.  Traditional fishing regions like Newfoundland, Grimsby England, Asia, Europe and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen their fishing industries fall under strict fishing moratoriums.  In the UK, fisherman are catching half of what they caught in 1920 and it is estimated that 80% of the UK fish stocks have vanished.  The same can be said for European waters.  But this has not stopped the large European fishing fleets who have turned to purchasing fishing rights off countries such as Senegal, which ended over a dispute about the amount of fish taken.  The poorest countries don't even get the courtesy of an agreement as large fishing vessels just lower their nets knowing the government is in no way prepared to enforce its boundary rights.  Experts feel that in order to save the fish stocks for future generations, fishing needs to be banned in 1/3 of all the world's oceans.

The disparity between the developed countries, emerging economies and the perpetually poorer nations is no more obvious than in our present day food model.  China, Saudi Arabia, Qattar and other money rich and land poor nations, in order to meet their food demands, look toward the poor nations of Africa and South America for cheap land.  Today, Kenya produces more food than its population could eat, however, most Kenyan's can not afford the food grown in their own country and subsist on cheap grain from the west which fails to meet their nutritional requirements.  New Zealand produces nine times more food than its population can eat and exports 25% of its lamb to the UK for cheaper than the UK could produce it themselves, and while New Zealanders are not starving, pressure will be put on their food supplies once other markets turn to them for supply.

The most successful farmers around the world can expect to see only a tenth of the money westerners pay for food in a grocery store.  Industrial nations are importing 40-50% of their food at prices cheaper than they could grow the same produce at home.  The cost of food in Europe and North America is artificially low and unsustainable and as land in poorer nations becomes scarcer food prices will inevitably rise.  The demand for land in poor regions has caused even more poor to be displaced from their traditional lands, where they could at least eke out a subsistence, to urban areas where their skills are no longer in demand.  Many of these displaced persons will go hungry and homeless.

But land and water shortages are only a part of the problem.  Take the case of the Cavendish Banana.  This banana represents about 90% of all species of bananas grown in the world.  In the western industrial nations we eat about 25 pounds of them per person per year and know no other type of banana.   Prior to the Cavendish western culture ate the Gros Michel banana which was considered of superior taste and quality.  But, the Gros Michel was wiped out by 1960 due to a disease that is now attacking the world supply of Cavendish banana.  This lack of diversity is important when you realize that in parts of Africa people eat upwards of 1000 pounds of banana per person per year.   It is why in Africa and Asia there are a wider variety of bananas. As the banana companies look to maintain their markets in western nations, they will inevitably take from the supply of the poor.  In western cultures there are several foods which are now susceptible to disease due to a lack of diversity.  It is suggested the Cavendish Banana may disappear completely within 15-20 years and, just as we never tasted the banana our grandparents ate, our grandchildren will never taste the one we eat today.  I will revisit the case of the Cavendish banana in future posts.

Water shortages, energy shortages, land shortages, dwindling resources, expanding population, redistribution of wealth and the ever present threat of disease make for a gloomy picture of the future.  We live in a technological age which at times seems more concerned with contributing to the problems rather than finding solutions.  Emerging economies seem more concerned with expanding their wealth and wealthy countries seem concerned with holding on to what they have while the poor simply want to make it through another day.  With all the resources and increased wealth developed in the last 50 years, it seems less and less is trickling down to the poor and the next 50 years don't look to be any more promising for them.  Our world clock suggests we are on our way toward 10 billion, but does our future suggest otherwise?  If global temperatures continue to climb, will the equatorial region of the planet, where most people live, even be habitable in 50 years?  If those people have to move to countries with arable lands, how much land will be left for agriculture?  How much more of the forest canopy will disappear and how will that affect our climate and food sources?

That concludes our little trip into the future which I hope demonstrates some of the challenges that face humanity as we seek to feed 10 billion people in a changing climate with dwindling resources.  I'm sure after reading this many of you over 50 might feel the need to turn to your children and grandchildren and say "I'm sorry", and really, go ahead.  But, keep in mind that living on a spinning rock that is floating around a star in the outer regions of an unspectacular galaxy in a far off part of an enormous universe has never been an easy thing to do.  Life here has always had challenges and has never been easy.  With some good planning, research, hard work, cooperation and a drastic reduction in pure greed that has been the defining characteristic of the last two generations perhaps the future can hold some promise.  But what road should we take?

Talk of Foie Gras Ban Galls Me

The State of Confusion California, has a ban on foie gras set to become law on July 1st of this year.  Restaurants currently selling foie gras will have had 7 years to find an alternative menu item.  There has been a lot of talk about the subject and where there is talk there is inevitably misinformation.  Regardless what your initial feeling is about foie gras, take a couple of minutes and see for yourself here, here, here and here, whether you think the practice is cruel or not.

All animals that are raised by humans as food will inevitably die, that is just a simple fact.  We are obliged to provide those animals, I believe, with as respectful and stress free an existence as possible.  Respect includes reducing the waste from those animals by using every edible portion of each animal we kill and finding uses for the inedible portions where possible.   I personally feel that the duck farmers that produce foie gras have, are and will continue to do just that.  I don't like liver and giblets, sweet breads and organs, but I do like foie gras and I see its production as nothing more than taking advantage of the duck's genetic trait.  For me there is no ethical issue.  I have more concern for the treatment of cattle, pork and chicken on most farms.  And, if you have ever witnessed animals at an abattoir you would realize the last moments of their lives are not so comfortable, either.  Add to that the treatment of chickens in the entire production process and you can certainly find far more deserving sectors of agriculture for a ban.

But, maybe you are not convinced by the links and you still think that foie gras is not ethical for you.  That's fine: convince me.  Define what is ethical.  If you are a vegan, congratulations, but let me remind you that agricultural practices of humans are the single biggest contributor to global warming, desertification, loss of top soil and water shortages; not to mention damage to ecosystems from over use of synthetic AND organic fertilizers and reduction of habitat for wild species.  None of which, in my opinion, is very ethical on face value.  But, you believe your life style is doing some good and this allows you to sleep better.  Fair enough.  And, I respect that.

The State of California did pass a law banning the shark fin trade, that I happen to agree with.  "Oh, hold on Dennis," I hear you cry!  "What hypocrisy is this?"  well, the difference is that shark finning is having an ecological impact that goes beyond whether or not I think it is ethical to eat shark (for the record I would be ok with farmed shark where no threat of extinction exists).  My guide for all matters seafood is the Seafood Watch program from Monterey Bay Aquarium.  There are some alternatives suggested by Seafood Watch, but unfortunately, the really prized fins come from the more endangered species and are usually harvested in the most wasteful manner using only the fins.  That is why I am opposed.  I respect the culture that wants to keep this traditional item in its cuisine, though I would respect it more if it found a  more sustainable, respectful and humane way to do so.

But, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, there are some limits to what I am prepared to do to convince you, or others, of my stance.  One limit is to avoid criminal behaviour including publishing your personal details on line for the world to see.  Or, having my supporters contact you to harass or threaten you.  But, mostly, I will respect the privacy of your family and especially your children.  Some in the California legislature are less principled.

How Do You Detect All Those Notes With Your Nose So High In The Air?

Last week, the biggest story on wine blogs and forums was this story about Costco's wine buyer, Annette Alvarez-Peters.  Most of the tone of commentary was similar to Eater's, with no-one really defending Alvarez-Peters.  But, I watched the video and thought: "so what?"

Well, the what appears to be in the details of Ms. Alvarez-Peters' background.  You see, she is not one of them.  She is not a Cordon Bleu trained chef or Sommelier; or from a wine making family with roots in the industry; or from a small boutique retailer.  She does not speak of nuances and notes and tannins like the other wine experts.  She doesn't know, or at least they assume she doesn't know, what goes with foie gras or Mahi Mahi or white truffles.  My God! She probably couldn't even tell you the difference between American Oak and French, that bitch!  No, Alvarez-Peters has the audacity to be trained in retail purchasing.  And worse, bulk retail purchasing. I mean, they only mark up their products 15 percent.  Quick, somebody tweet David Chang!

Oh no, she is not part of the wine industry - and I do not speak here of the grape growers and wine makers but, rather, the whole industry of "experts": restauranteurs and retailers who have made a fortune on the backs of those who make wine.  This is a group of people who believe that they are endowed with genetically superior palates and only through years of training and suffering for their art have they been able to detect the subtle differences between appellations.  Who am kidding?  They can even detect differences between one clos and another, one year and another, probably even when a winery changes bottle suppliers. Yes, unless you have memorized every wine ever made, every chateau, every region, every varietal, every vintage, every wine maker, you will never be able to decide for yourself whether something is "delicious" or not and will always need the guidance of the wine Jedi.

I watched the video and thought to myself, for I dare not think these things out loud, that I like Alvarez-Peters!  I admire that she has worked her way up through the company to be in charge of what might be the most prestigious part of Costco's business.  I liked her reply when she was called the most powerful buyer in the industry: " I am an employee of Costco"  which is the point.  Her job is to find products that she believes will be most appreciated by her company's customers, not to perpetuate a myth or save a floundering winery.  And, she is right when she says: "in the end it is just a beverage".  Why is this so offensive a statement?  Oh right, because you are supposed to have a magical, transcendental experience with wine.  Right, I forgot.  It's like drinking wine should be the same kind of miracle as when Jesus turned water into wine - which, of course, it is: in that neither ever happened.

But, snobbery aside, there is one other thing that bothers me about the criticism of Alvarez-Peters and that is the assumption that she could not have taken enough training to be able to know as much as she needs to about wine to purchase it (by the way, she has).  In other words, unless you have taken all the proper classes and attended all the right schools and interned at all the right restaurants and wineries, you have no business speaking about food or, especially wine.  A friend of mine is a professional photographer who laments that every computer geek with Photoshop and a digital camera thinks he is a professional photographer.  That, of course, does not make them professionals, but a lack of professional credentials does not mean they can't take an excellent picture, even one that is considered art.  A professional credential just gives you the assurance that this person should have some knowledge about what they are doing and should offer some guarantee to protect your purchase.  As we all know, no such assurances exist in any profession.  For Costco, the credentials that Alvarez-Peters brings as a retail buyer are of greater importance than her wine expertise (which can be learned) and wine experts probably do not make the best retail buyers (which also can be learned).

I have never taken a cooking course in my life other than two weeks of home-economics in grades seven and eight.  I like my food and others have told me they like my food.  I have never taken a nutrition course, yet I know the supposed basic principles of proper nutrition even if I refuse to follow them.  I know how almost every kitchen gadget in the world works, my knife skills I would pit against many professional cooks, I design my own recipes and alter others.  I can substitute ingredients, estimate weights and measures, and tell when something needs more seasoning or time cooking.  Would I hire me as a professional cook? No, my plating sucks and I don't know enough about how professional kitchens function.  But, I can tell the difference between good food and bad, good wine and bad, and a good time and bad.  I think, with my life experiences, I could run a produce department, butcher shop or other food/beverage retail business.  But, I wouldn't expect to be hired by anyone directly to the position of president.  Alvarez-Peters has done no less in her career, from my perspective.

By far, the tag line that got the most headlines from the video was "surely it's different from toilet paper?"  "Why?" she responds.  One comment I read stated: "I have never heard such a stupid statement, even from a corporate zipperhead. Does any restaurant say that it is just a plate of food? Or a car company say it is just transportation."  Well, no! And no wine maker is saying it either.  Alvarez-Peters is a retailer of wine.  If she sold Toyotas and suddenly had to sell yellow school buses, I am sure she would approach it from the perspective of "they're just motorized transportation."  Which is the sign of all good salespersons.  It is not a retailer's responsibility to design a product's marketing plan.  If it were, manufacturers would not employ marketing departments.  A retailer has the task of knowing how their customers respond to the products they offer and ensuring they are presented accordingly.  Everyone with a Costco membership, myself included, understands that, because we have seen some items sold in one location not sold in others.

At the end of the day, Alvarez-Peters is paid to look out for the best interests of Costco and its members.  If the wine establishment doesn't like their approach they can stop selling them wine, stop inviting them to tastings, stop purchasing them at their stores, etc.  I have many hobbies and wine is just one of them.  I live in a part of the world where wine sales and prices are strictly controlled by the state, along with all alcohol.  In fact, other than the producers, the state is the only authorized retailer of alcohol.  The LCBO receives much of the same criticism that Costco receives in the U.S. This does not keep me from seeking out independent producers in Ontario and, in fact, has encouraged me to find yet another hobby: touring Ontario wine regions.

I don't buy the argument that Costco's format is an independent killer.  With a little creativity on the part of the Ontario government, Costco, and the independent Ontario wineries, Costco could help put more of their wine on the tables of Ontario wine drinkers.  This might not be a good thing for smaller independent retailers (though not a concern in Ontario for alcohol, anyway) but, where does it say in the laws of capitalism, that I am indebted to those retailers and must pay to support their accustomed lifestyle?  Not many of them feel badly that the industry I work in is dying, in fact their association has made it clear they don't care much about the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed.  I can only wish that Costco were allowed to sell wine in Ontario, my declining purchasing power is making this a hobby that I may not be able to support, and I can not see how that is good for any industry in this economy.

I Prefer the Term Frugal Wines Pt.II

In the interest of fairness, here is an article responding to the Slate piece that I blogged about concerning cheap wine.  I think the article is lacking in any logic.  The writer starts by summarizing the arguments of the original article and then goes about ignoring those arguments all together.  It is filled with straw men and logical fallacies including an appeal to popularity, appeal to authority and the ever popular appeal to tradition.  But, it completely side steps the facts: 1) that experts, let alone non-experts, can't tell expensive from cheap wine 2) that most people drink wine without lingering over its complexity 3) that if you find a wine you didn't like then you are not out much money and 4) if you like cheaper wine what business is it of anyone else.

The writer suggests that there is a human cost to cheap wine by linking to a story about a worker who died in the vineyards of a notoriously cheap vintner.  Well, if you can use Google you could probably find an example of a high end winery that has experienced a death or even a a mid level winery, for that matter..  What does that prove? Nothing.  As for the argument that Wonder Bread and Kraft slices aren't as good as artisanal breads and cheese that is just silly; give kids a choice and they will probably pick Wonder and Kraft every time and, to use their own logic, Wonder and Kraft sell more so doesn't that make it better?  And if you want to make a good grilled cheese you are better off with the cheap stuff (but that's a post for another day).

There is a somewhat better post here although note that this writer makes the same silly argument of the difference between a Big Mac and a Lobel's Steak.  Well, I will go on record as saying most people can't tell the difference between a Big Mac patty and a Lobel's patty of similar size, shape and preparation.  And, it holds true that most people can't tell the difference between a cheap bottle of French Pinot Noir and a more expensive French Pinot Noir. One should stick to comparing apples to apples.  Price has no bearing on the taste of the wine any more than price has any bearing on the taste of beer, whiskey, chocolate, peanut butter, onions, tomatoes, etc.  Also, price has less and less to do with quality in all those examples (but again, there is another post for another day in that statement).  As for the idea of wine as culture, while this is true there is no law that culture need be expensive - the foods of the peasants are inexpensive, until enjoyed by the snobs, and they are culture.

But, read the articles and make up your own mind.  As always, it is your palate, your stomach, eat and drink what you like and can afford.

Eternal Life

There is an interesting post about the effects of a molecule found in red wine that might someday provide a way to prolong life.  Of course, this kind of news will inevitably be used by some to justify over consumption and others will develop useless pills purported to have all the same elements of the molecule being discussed but which will do nothing, conveniently ignoring the challenges the article mentions. When it comes to scientific discoveries about prolonging life I always wonder at the lengths we go to, all of us, to find ways to live forever.  Many skeptics, myself included, mockingly point to the futility of the religious in a quest for eternal life through faith.  Yet many of those same skeptics will also trumpet any scientific discovery that promises some hope of living a longer life.  This quest for eternal life seems to be a strong common human trait.

But, I have had the opportunity to see life from a different point of view.  Being the type of person who never needs much motivation to engage in conversation, my job as a lettercarrier has given me the opportunity to meet fascinating people.  Two that come to mind whenever I read about longevity of life, were an 87 year old female and a 92 year old female.  Both lived alone in houses that they had owned with their spouses.  Both are remarkably active and in good health physically and mentally.  And both, I am willing to bet from conversations with them, would not be willing to take a pill that would extend their life.  In fact, both have stated to me in conversation that they hoped not to live much more than a few more years.  Their reasons were similar: loss of friends, boredom, a feeling of living in a world no longer theirs and just a general feeling of a life accomplished and a need for an ending.  The older of the two is an active member of her church, I suspect more for social reasons than belief, and the younger was once religious but has told me she is "pretty certain now that what is here in this life is pretty much it".

At first I was a little shocked at their casual acceptance of the inevitable but as I have thought about it I realized that I, also, would not want to take that pill.  I would definitely take a pill that would assure the time allotted to me was spent as healthily as possible - the one thing that scares me most in life is aging - but to prolong an existence that is driven toward working towards an end (i.e. end of a book or movie, end of school, end of the work day, end of the work week, end of a working life etc.) seems out of step with a natural order.  A look around nature shows us that death is inevitable and as much a part of the continuity of existence as birth and life and sex and all that living entails.  That is not to say the women or myself are actively seeking death, but accepting mortality does seem to bring a kind of peace of mind.  The best one can really hope for is a life well lived and a quick and easy death.

There are, of course, those elderly who would take the pill to live longer, especially if it included better overall health, and for many I suspect this comes from a feeling of lack of accomplishment or the fear of eternal punishment for a perceived transgression of youth.  But, I think even those people will tire eventually of "the daily grind" of life. Many come to grips with this sooner than others.  I think the idea of eternal life is really a quest for the young who believe that life moves slowly and there is still so much to learn and experience.  People who are just approaching middle age and have not yet had to come to terms with their own mortality and who are satisfied in their occupations or vocations.  To them the idea of eternal life must be a no brainer.

But, if one contemplates the issues of living maybe 150+ years and considers the reproductive rates of humans, the lack of natural predators, the scarcity of land, the diminishing supply of food and fresh drinking water, might one not pause to wonder if prolonged life isn't more about selfishness?  Would it not be society's duty to try to enforce a population control like is the norm in China?  Ask yourself: if you are willing to spend that much time on this planet, would you want to spend that time with everyone already here? And how would you deal with the declining health of the planet without a natural population cull? And who makes the decision on who lives longer and who doesn't?

As the article points out, science has many ways to help us stay healthier longer.  Much of them I snub my nose at and here is my reasoning: life is fleeting.  We have all won a lottery - as Warren Buffet called it, the lottery of the womb - in which, from millions of chances we have arrived. But as events 10 years ago have taught us, it can all be taken away so easily, despite our health.  For those of us living in Canada, I believe we have won the jackpot.  Life here is full of opportunities to experience pleasure, emotion, thrills, nature, tastes and culture.  To deny one's self these opportunities might, in fact, lead to a longer and healthier life, but would it be a happier one?  I don't think so.  I think partaking of life's pleasures requires the same decision making as the taking of various medications, there has to be a balance of the quality of life obtained against the potential side effects. Also, just because one has the ability to live longer through sacrificing does not guarantee against a tragic ending and the denial of those small pleasures left unexperienced till a later date. And, just as with medicine, each individual has to make that decision in terms of what is the best balance for them.  I believe the fullness of a life should be measured in the quality of years rather than the quantity.  I don't think my years have been filled with the quality I might have liked, but I feel at ease with the idea of an end, later rather than sooner at this point in my life.

So, what do you think.  If you read this, do me a favour and post a comment here, not on facebook or other links, and tell me if I am way off or not.  You can post anonymous comments, and simply say if you would want to live forever and why or why not.

Sunday Comic