 | The Bullroarer - Friday 30th November 2007 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | Australia, The Place to Be: Part 3b |  |
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
I guess I can come out and say I have never understood relocalization either.
I think most people have very little clue how much more efficient mass production methods are. It's cheaper because it's more efficient. Doing things locally will be less efficient and more expensive. The only advantage of local production would be redundancy, but this is a cost people are unlikely to want to pay for.
Specialization and trade arise naturally from economies of scale. Let's say you have Village A and B, and both are capable of pots and baskets. It becomes more efficient for Village A to produce only pots, and B to produce baskets, and then trade.
We have developed that over thousands of years, it's now impossible for it to be unwound to any meaningful level.
It's definately one of those things that some people don't get at all. Some people put *everything* on the cheapest price (and typically, larger consumption) and don't consider any other factors. These people will never understand why I would eat a burger at a local restaurant while they eat more for less at McDonalds. They won't understand why I enjoy locally grown airloom tomoatoes and fresh herbs grown by me while they eat at McDonalds for cheaper. I could go on about how some don't understand why I prefer smaller, local schools rather than more 'efficient' mega-schools, or mega-stores, mega-supermarkets because I like to know my kid's teachers, the shopkeepers and butchers. It makes me feel better. And some can never understand that.
So basically it's a lifestyle choice. I can understand that, I just haven't seen it expressed like that. I got the impression there was more to it.
What more is there than lifestyle choice ?
The tricky part comes in when people who have made the poor choices begin to suffer the consequences, what burden will be forced onto those that have made wise choices.
Maybe "lifestyle choice" was the wrong expression. What I meant it that some people buy designer clothes because it make them feel better, i.e. it's an expression of personal freedom of little consequence.
However you are now apparently contradicting yourself, by saying it's also about sustainability. I would say that is a lot more than just "feeling good".
There is no contradiction. It is about both.
Just like I can decide not to smoke cigarettes and stay in shape because it makes me feel good. If you elect to smoke and be a couch potato, eventually you will suffer the consequences.
Everybody want to 'feel good' I think. It's about taste to some extent and some other thing that is harder to describe.
The taste aspect is simple - the locally grown vegetables and meats and dairy have better flavor. My local diner makes better hamburgers and omletts than McDonalds. Some people may not have a better choice than McDonalds or they may not care as long as it is cheaper and they get more.
Another aspect of feeling good is as I said, harder to describe. It has more to do with a sense of accomplishment, self sufficiency, security, and acknowledgement of the future.
Well you confuse me there because smokers say they smoke because it "makes them feel good". To be honest, introducing subjective judgements about taste and longevity is muddying the water and confusing the real issue.
Presumably, if local produce was less sustainable, you would not "feel good" about it. The fundamental point is that local production is considered more sustainable. All the other stuff you mention is window dressing designed to "sell" sustainability.
That's just it, and why the public process can be so confusing as well - people value different things on a whole range of issues. If this isn;t realized, then the whole discussion becomes muddied.
As to sustainability, some value the future (why I do not know, but I do) and therefore care about sustainability and think it's generally a good thing, while others put less value on future conditions and therefore are at least neutral on sustainability.