My original post was not meant to jump into the economic realm, but utilize something I read from Berry to promote a local ecclesiology. A buddy of mine went to the economic end and eloquently posed a couple of questions that I do not hear answered by the sustainable economy folk. I probably align in ideal with this camp, and made some comments of my own, but I know that I have not thought the answers through long enough to even hash out my thoughts.
My buddy's comment reads:
I am curious to read Berry's essay. I often wonder about the extent that sustainable economy folks, especially those arguing for small local economies, rely on a manufactured nostalgia for the "green grass" on the other side of the creek. Particularly, how would a locally based economy respond to a regional disaster such as what befell the people of Yogyakarta or the folks who suffered under Katrina? Some would argue that the last example would not have taken place were it not for international economics, but I would offer the additional example of Galveston, which in 1900 suffered a devastating hurricane that killed 10,000 displaced more and ultimately accounted for the preeminence of Houston and the decline of Galveston. It would seem to me that larger economies would be better able to respond to this type of disaster by pulling on unaffected regions.
So, the question goes out to my readers, what are your thoughts? How does a sustainable economy idealist answer the questions posed?
Permalink
