Location, location, location

In a recent episode of The Colombia Cast podcast, the eminent economist and political scientist James Robinson, co-author of the influential Why Nations Fail, restated his view that geography plays no part in the economic development of countries.

Location matters. (Image from Wikipedia.)

Looking at it from an Americas perspective from the time Europeans arrived on these shores, that Canada and the US are more advanced than their counterparts further south has a lot to do with pure chance initially, later followed by the systems of governance introduced.

Easy pickings

Basically, the Spanish found fairly advanced civilisations settled in areas rich in natural resources that could be relatively easily exploited for the homeland. The British, in contrast, had to deal with largely nomadic tribes inhabiting rather harsh conditions. 

One, oversimplified way to put it is that the Spanish found streets paved with gold to loot while the concept of a street didn't even exist where the British settlers landed.

'Climate certainly played a part.'

Had the roles been reversed would the state of what we now call Latin America be much better today? Would the US be the power it is? The answer to the latter question is probably not, based on how the Spanish Empire ran its affairs. 

As for the Brits in Latin America, well their own record in lands where a quick buck could be made is far from exemplary. Jamaica's not exactly a powerhouse now, is it?

In this regard, while geography per se wasn't the factor, one could say climate played an important part.

In terms of Jamaica and other Caribbean islands, it was their ability to produce an abundance of cheap sugar for the European market that made them ripe (pun intended) for exploitation. Thus, their location in the tropics was critical.

We must also consider the idea that the need to plan and prepare according to the seasons in regions where a harsh winter would see off those found wanting played some role in ingraining a more organised disposition in those living further north.

Speaking of those northern reaches, had Ireland not been located next to the greatest old-school empire the world has ever known (today's big boys, the US and China, are perhaps best measured in different terms) there's little doubt it would look much different today.

Nothing without EU

Of course, there are many interconnected factors that shape countries and regions. In Ireland's case, had it converted to Protestantism — or had Britain remained Catholic — the last few centuries would surely have been far less troublesome than they were.

'Ireland was a pedagogical powerhouse.'

While British interference in Irish affairs was a fact before the religious divide, it became fundamental for security for the emerging empire to control — at pretty much whatever cost — the untrustworthy neighbour to the west. (Do note that in the early days of Christianity in Europe, Ireland was known as the island of saints and scholars, a sort of godly, pedagogical powerhouse we could say. Subjugation by the British changed all that.)

Fast forward a few hundred years and, as I've written about before, a partially independent Ireland's proximity to mainland Europe, not to mention membership of the European Union, has been crucial in its economic development.

Imagine if Ireland, everything else being equal, had been an island just off Africa. How would it look economically and politically today? One just needs to take a glance at the countries in the Dark Continent post-colonisation to get an idea.

Weighing all this up, while there are many reasons why nations 'fail', your neighbours can play a significant part. Location does matter, at least in those vital formative years.
__________________________________
Listen to The Colombia Cast podcast here.
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Stop! Don't bin that food!

So Colombians throw some 9.76 million tonnes of food in the rubbish bin each year. That's over 200 kilogrammes per person, if it were divided equally, which of course it isn't (witness the country's many homeless scavenging through bins as proof of that).

Un-egg-ceptable!

Obviously enough, such food waste isn't unique to here, it happens across the globe, especially and unsurprisingly among those who aren't staring at bare plates on a regular basis — lucky to have plates that they are. 

Yet it should hit home more in countries such as Colombia where the sight of malnourished and starving people is never too far away.

The thought of binning food brings me back to my younger days. When my siblings and I were reluctant to finish a meal we were given, our mother, in her bid to make us eat up, would say 'think of the starving children in Africa'. 

Although it was said in good faith, the strategy was pretty useless all the same. It wasn't like the already prepared food we didn't eat was going to be of any help to those starving in Africa and elsewhere. Indeed, as my brother used to cheekily say, he was refusing to eat as a symbolic gesture to those deprived.

It took a few years for us to truly understand the point of our mother's message, even if it wasn't and isn't of any practical help to the people actually in need of the food: we should be grateful that we have something to eat.

However, many of us appear not to be grateful going by the waste figures above.

Alongside immediately dumping good leftovers in the bin, you’ve got the commonplace practice of storing cooked food in the fridge or wherever with the idea of consuming it at a later date. 

In my experience, in my ongoing house-sharing years I've found that this rarely sees the light of day again — well, only when it's being dumped after acquiring some sort of new biological culture. Come on guys, give me the leftovers and I'll gladly scoff them down — save money and cooking time.

It must be pointed out here that when you're buying food only for yourself or just a few other adults, limiting waste is, or at least should be, a little easier. It gets somewhat trickier when you're feeding children, as I experienced when helping to look after my nephews last year. 

I had guidelines to follow but it was either a case of the less common 'we haven't enough' or the more usual 'we've too much/we don't want any more' (yet, funnily enough, there was always room for sugar-laden delights). After a while I just put on less for me, let the lads eat, and then take their leftovers, which would normally suffice.

It all pretty much aligns itself with my current practice of eating to hunger rather than the clock (breakfast excepted) and/or taking small portions; try to eat well, but not to excess.

Private food waste aside, it is in the public domain — fast food outlets, restaurants and the like — where, arguably, you have the biggest culprits in this regard. You can't blame the businesses in question entirely. 

If their customers leave behind grub, too "proud" to ask for a doggy bag as you'll often see, what can they do about it? Dishing out smaller portions is one solution anyway — that'd do a good few already well-fed people no harm at all.

The idea isn't that we should all return to a subsistence existence, although at our current consumption rates for a range of finite resources that mightn't be such a bad thing. It's more a case of being a little more efficient in both cooking and eating. 

A situation where we're binning perfectly good — or what once was perfectly good but was just left to waste — food should never arise.
_______________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".