Read an article in the Economic Times where the author has essentially said that Locavorism (the habit of practising home-grown / local grown food) is a fad that deserves to be dismissed.
I think not, and I left a response at the site which I am reproducing here as well.
A whole lot of numbers and data and views are thrown up by the author, but in my opinion, he has missed the wood for the trees.
Locavorism is not just about energy costs, it is also about building sustainable local economies.
“It makes no sense at all for Keralites to grow their own wheat or Punjabis to grow coconuts. That will condemn them to low yields and correspondingly high prices.”
The author has just picked on the literal meaning of the word locavorism. How much of locally growable stuff do we still get from long distances? Actually, it is quite a lot. How much of stuff that could be produced within US (say) is still procured from outside the USA, because the cost of labor in Brazil is cheaper than the cost of transporting it by ship (which is in itself a subsidized cost as fossil fuels would cost a lot more if all the environmental costs are included)? Possibly a lot, once again.
Marshall Mcluhan might think we are living in a global village, but that is not the only right perspective. We might also be forced to live in villages that are globes in themselves.
When we start living in severely constrained economies in which all three aspects of sustainability – profits, people and planet – have to be desperately taken care of, strange things will start happening.
Do let me know what your thoughts are, in this regard
I thought that was Hindu Economics.
Every village is self sufficient. It makes all goods locally.
Nothing is transported.
No CO2 emission in transporting.
I think we are heading towards Lcovorism the new word for Hindu Economics