Frequently I mention that monoculture is not good in computing or networks, using an analogy to monoculture agriculture. I forget to mention that monoculture is still bad in agriculture, and agriculture has gotten even less diverse in recent years. Plus it has developed a security by obscurity mentality:

They allowed me to see everything but the knocker who actually administers the fatal blow. It’s become more difficult since Sept. 11. The food industry has a new argument, which is partly sincere. They’ve recognized that with such a centralized food supply, somebody dropping a vial of bacterium into a vat of hamburger could reach tens of thousands of people. But it has also become an excuse to keep the prying eyes of journalists away from how our food is made, which is unfortunate because we would be better off if we had more transparency in our food system. If there was a right of access to meat slaughterhouses, they wouldn’t be slaughtering 400 beefs an hour, allowing manure to be smeared on carcasses, and going so fast that live animals get cut open. The best we could do for the safety of our food supply, for the beauty of our landscape and for the quality of our water would be to decentralize meat and agriculture.

We are what we eat: Interview with The Omnivore’s Dilemma" author Michael Pollan, by Ira Boudway, Salon, 8 April 2006.

The article goes on to detail how ignorance about the food supply ("I mean, some people would be shocked to learn that you can’t get a steak without killing a cow.") is widespread among everybody from the end-consumer to members of Congress.

Did you know that the average milk cow these days never leaves the barn after it is adult? Sounds a lot like the situation with computing and networking. Do you know how many computer users never patch their software after they buy their computer? Especially software that they got with the computer and that therefore they think is cheap? Just like they think supermarket food is cheap and therefore good?

To think that this food is cheap is a failure to see all the costs involved. The real price is not reflected at the cash register, but in your healthcare bill, in your tax bills, or in your bills for bottled waters after the water supply has been contaminated by industrial chemicals. There’s an argument often made that buying the right food is elitist, because it is more expensive. And I’m not going to defend the prices at Whole Foods, because there’s certainly profiteering going on in the organic food industry, but, in general you’re paying closer to the real costs when you buy organic or local. Organic food is not subsidized in any way. And organic food does not put as much burden onto the public health system.

Hm, and if you buy a Mac, you may pay more, but it will probably cause you fewer security problems down the road. And if you buy open software, it may even cost you less

Is extreme centralization of the food supply, permitting many choke points that could facilitate introducing toxins, and involving massive applications of antibiotics that breed resistant diseases; is such a food supply system good risk management? Is extreme centralization of the software supply, with the same problems, good risk management?

-jsq