It's not always advantageous to be efficient, and this is even more true in really important areas like food supply, because having the extra, underutilized capacity can save you in a pinch. When it comes to frivolous things like computers and phones and cars, it's much easier to favor efficiency,because the breakdowns can be really problematic, but still less immediately endangering.
Evolution is perhaps the best example of how being inefficient can be hugely beneficial in the long term.
Only specific types of inefficiency represent underutilized capacity. And I don't see how local food shipping qualifies. If anything the distribution-center model makes it easier to reallocate resources toward food supply, because they already have lots of trucks available that typically don't carry food.
By comparison, "just-in-time" shipping is an example where the efficiency removes those margins. But that's orthogonal to how far the food ships. You can have similar-sized buffers either way.
I'm going to just try a couple analogies because I suspect my argument won't come through if I try to explain or use examples. It seems like one interpretation of complex distribution networks is that they form a strong web that can flex and even have fibers break while still maintaining the cohesion and function of the whole. On the other hand, if that web actually turns out to have long dependencies, it could rapidly deteriorate, which is what concerns me.
I suppose that it's true about the large numbers of trucks, but wouldn't those only be reallocated to the detriment of providing other goods? And what happens to all our excess flexibility if severe oil shortages come to pass?
Looking closer to the origin,the centralized model leaves us more susceptible to local droughts and floods (because everyone's produce comes from Salinas and watsonville), infectious diseases in livestock herds, and fungus that can cripple the entire crop of a particular fruit (because we've reduced the number of varieties by nine tenths or ninety nine hundredths.)
> On the other hand, if that web actually turns out to have long dependencies, it could rapidly deteriorate, which is what concerns me.
I agree, but certain types of dependencies are much riskier than others.
> I suppose that it's true about the large numbers of trucks, but wouldn't those only be reallocated to the detriment of providing other goods?
Yes, but what's the detriment of emergency-increasing local shipping? Probably at least as bad.
> And what happens to all our excess flexibility if severe oil shortages come to pass?
Local shipping takes more oil in many cases.
> Looking closer to the origin,the centralized model leaves us more susceptible to local droughts and floods (because everyone's produce comes from Salinas and watsonville), infectious diseases in livestock herds
Instead of a major shortage leading to deaths in one area, while everyone else is fine, it turns into a slight supply reduction over the entire country.
> fungus that can cripple the entire crop of a particular fruit (because we've reduced the number of varieties by nine tenths or ninety nine hundredths.)
That is definitely a major problem, but is also unrelated to how far you ship. Megafarms could plant 50 kinds of tomato efficiently, if they wanted to.
Evolution is perhaps the best example of how being inefficient can be hugely beneficial in the long term.