Such a good writer should research an article published in the NY Times? around 1900 warning of a disaster about to happen to New York when all the streets would be covered in horse poop! Also the article said there would not be enough pasture land to feed all the horses required to accommodate the growth in the horse population to meet the US economy’s growth rate.
Luckily that pesky automobile came along and helped out! As well, oil and gas made for cleaner air than coal fired steam plants.
Myopic persons such as this writer can find something wrong with everything and miss the big picture!
England’s Prince Charles bemoans “factory agriculture” and longs to go back the small country farms,(he owns several) not realizing that half of his countrymen would starve with such an inefficient method of agricultural production.
As said, a cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing!
He also, via his foundation, funded Nazi eugenics, and German “research” aimed at justifying Hitler’s persecution of the Jews.
Regardless, the overarching point that is relevant to this discussion is that Henry Ford did something really cool in bringing cars to the masses, but he was simultaneously not a good person at all.
+1
And, in addition to his blatant anti-Semitism, old Henry is remembered for the employment of a “security force” that was really a group of strong-arm thugs who beat striking Ford employees. The head of that group, Harry Bennett, was essentially a gangster employed by Henry Ford.
In the first place, the author asked a question, not came to a conclusion. I concluded from the article that the automotive era wasn’t a mistake. In the second place, he tells us he travels in automobiles, even though he doesn’t drive or own one. The title was probably meant to provoke; you took the bait.
Dour Prince Charlie is a silly fellow. If Britons managed their agriculture and food-delivery system efficiently they could grow all they eat, though probably with less meat and milk, certainly with a lot less waste. I doubt they grow most of it now, it being cheaper to import and they eat lots of stuff they don’t grow (bananas, citrus…)
Maybe while we’re on British agriculture someone can explain why they don’t refrigerate their milk? It just sits out all the time, breakfast, lunch, dinner. It was repulsive but seemed to be OK. I don’t let stuff sit out more than 30 minutes before it is back in the fridge. Oh maybe that’s it. Lucas refrigerators? Why bother putting it in a warm refrigerator when room temperature is cooler?
A lot of milk in Europe is UHT (ultra high temperature) treated and does no require refrigeration. The Swedes invented this process. I remember going to Italy on a holiday and ordering milk with my meal. After a strange stare form the waiter I got a glass of tepid, strange tasting UHT milk. Most UHT milk tastes like it has been boiled and then cooled!
Those small tetrapaks with coffee cream doe not need refrigeration either.
Thanks. Must be it. Great breakfasts and used it on corn flakes but I was a little concerned. Figured must be OK if everyone else used it. I prefer coffee though but not on corn flakes.
That might be true, but that was around 80 years later. Sorry, but I can’t remember exact year, I’m not THAT old.
I think one of the Wallenberg’s was involved in starting the company (Tetrapak).
It’s rather like restaurants… creamer sits out all day.
Once UHT packaging is open, the milk sours just like any other. In the US, pasteurized milk has a longer shelf life these days. Its sell-by date is 2 weeks when it was 8 days not long ago. Of course, that depends on the cap being sealed.
You can buy UHT packaged milk in the US. I was surprised when I saw it for the first time, sitting on a shelf.
We all know about Louis Pasteur, of course. The Swedes perfected the process of Ultra High Temperature pasteurization that did not make the milk taste burnt! The Tetra Pak was a Swedish invention also and a boon for small restaurants and home owners without fridges.
