Responding to Alex Steffen’s Critique of Transition at WorldChanging

Jan Hendrik Rufer 3 months ago on Wordpress

Obviously there is not a shared vision.

So i am not surprised that there is de-vision.

Have a nice day!

JH

Reply

theplayethic 3 months ago on Twitter

Looks like essential exchange: Alex Steffen on what's wrong with Transition Towns, and an expert response http://icio.us/3dxgxs

Reply

Dave Dann 3 months ago on Wordpress

I must admit that I previously had no idea what ‘bright-greens’ and ‘dark-greens’ were – how ignorant am I! This discussion is all very interesting but my feeling at the moment is that we are geeting nowhere because there is little unity of purpose amongst people and little chance of establishing it. It seems to me that we should be on a sort ‘war footing’ to deal with our problems. The most useful role of central government would be to start a general debate about how we are going to live in the future, with the hope of trying to achieve as much consensus and common purpose as possible. Instead we have a totally head-in-the-sand, ‘business as usual’ approach with even (this is the UK) a continuing concern to finance people and projects can cannot pay their way. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

AllForLocal 3 months ago on Twitter

Provoking articles re: Transition Towns, localism, & energy-indep. http://is.gd/4PaX8 http://is.gd/4PaXa http://is.gd/4PaX9

Reply

cfigallo 3 months ago on Twitter

Comment re: WorldChanging : "bright greens are cornucopians. Cornucopians are wrong. That's the end of the story. http://bit.ly/IisqF

Reply

André Angelantoni 3 months ago on Wordpress

Before this error is repeated some more, allow me to correct it. I do not call the bright greens cornucopians. The actual line is:

“The cornucopians and ‘bright greens’ have, in my view, a very poor grasp of the following key macro trends…”

I haven’t studied the ‘bright green’ idea in depth but I suspect they are somewhere between the ‘mad max’ line and the cleantech stability line in the four scenarios graph (which is actually Holgrem’s graph, of course) — exactly where TT’s are.

The difference is that TT’s generally understand the bullet points I wrote about above (net energy decline, export land model, the fatal flaw in fractional banking, etc.) whereas the bright greens, it seems, either don’t know about those forces or ignore them. (Again, I haven’t studied bright greens in depth, so I’m open to being corrected here.)

The funny thing is It doesn’t seem to matter to many of my colleagues in the sustainability/cleantech/climate change fields that the first big warning of peak oil ($147 oil) has helped cause historically high unemployment and a credit crunch — precisely what peak oil educators have been saying would happen for years. They simply keep talking about their pet ideas and technologies assuming there will be a recovery and that they just need to bide their time. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Jason 3 months ago on Wordpress

@LizM “The people you are talking about are people you want as allies in the long run. Treat them as such.”

I am for one. To point out the truth is to help someone; if they don’t get it, they don’t get it. But often, if you keep doing it, they ’see reason’ — then they say, “Thankyou for the reality check.”

To truly mourn makes us far stronger than to smile — and deny. What Steffen is saying is, “I will not allow you to recognize the truth, nor mourn, nor act according to the reality.”

There is no such thing as bright green and dark green. As Andre says, bright greens are cornucopians. Cornucopians are wrong. That’s the end of the story.

Reality is a good thing. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Shane Hughes 3 months ago on Wordpress

I believe the re-framed argument is one of exchanging economic growth with the growth of quality of life (of all beings). On first view it’s exchanging one positive for another positive rather than the limits to growth or no growth/recession argument which is a very negative exchange in the mainstream view.

All of the rest of the arguments embed into this new frame. There’s a great deal of people that believe that money and materials equates to quality of life but that’s the cultural story that we need to break or snap out of. There’s enough evidence out there that money doesn’t equal happiness and this notion is supported across all demographics. Even my Daily Mail reading dad agrees with this argument i.e. this is not a green argument, it’s one that once the cultural story has shifted, we can all buy into and work towards the new story with a passion.

i know this means competing with the capitalist corporate machines but at the end of the day that’s run by humans and these ideas all ready have strong holds at all levels of the corporate world and are permeating deeper and being given urgency by the current PO CC imperative.

I have faith that this is an argument that could put the majority of society on the same side. I can’t imagine that everyone agreed with the civil rights movement but it’s just about getting the critical mass.

I also like that it’s simple. a quick and easy phase; “replacing economic growth with the growth of quality of life (of all beings)” sums up a potential global shift to a resilient and vibrant planet. the reality is far more complex but it’s kind of like the 10:10 campaign, it needs that simple hook to penetrate a new believe or idea into the masses. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

John Mason 3 months ago on Wordpress

Quoting Shane:

“was it Martin Luther King who blew wide open the campaign for rights for black Americans, when he re-framed the approach as civil rights instead of black rights? i.e. all the American peoples rights where being infringed. I think we have a similar issue of having to re-frame the approach in a way that takes it out of the green ghetto. It’s up to us to re-present the problems and solutions so that people realise that we’re all on the same side.”

That’s very true indeed, and well put – now the tricky bit – how do we do it? How do we achieve what would, if successful, apparently be the greatest paradigm-shift of humanity in 150 years?

I’m up at half-past four in the morning again simply because I was fed up of lying in bed worrying about just that when I should have been fast asleep!

To dip into the Microsoft analogy-world again, it does sometimes seem as though we are computers running on a different operating-system whilst the majority are running and communicating on Windows, so that they cannot even recognise any datafiles we produce, let alone begin to read them!

Is not one of the key problems that we have in communicating these issues simply this: that corporate consumer-capitalism works so effectively (when unconstrained by irritations such as resource-depletion) because it involves a near-total decoupling of the individual’s lifestyle with the natural world and its inherent physical properties? Once that is achieved, you have a consuming unit that takes a lot for granted, and expects stuff to be available regardless of the consequences elsewhere on the planet. Any perceived threat to that is then reacted to as an attempt to erode that most precious thing of all, “freedom of choice”. Green activists in the UK are often portrayed as people attempting to do just that, hence the “they want us to wear hair-shirts and go back to living in caves” type accusations that they often face.

Having said which, the “roll up your sleeves and get on with it” approach is still something that most people can relate to, and it acts as a bridge between people of many different political persuasions/levels of environmental consciousness. Just as well really, since as pointed out above, a lot of the techo-fixes some people like to posit for oil depletion are almost without exception la-la-land!

Cheers – John ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Liz M owner hyperlocavore 3 months ago on Wordpress

Hey Mike – Me too – grew up 10 miles north of Silicon Valley, had my first computer in 89, been on the web since before there were pictures…making a quilt from all the swag shirts .

And Andre – I did make the point about operating systems and Microsoft – to shorthand the argument you’ve made here… But shortened it far too much apparently!

Reply

Liz M owner hyperlocavore 3 months ago on Wordpress

Andre!

Thank you for the reality check! Like climate change and peak oil – accepting the full force of the downturn is subject to a denial process. You and I share the same POV on this – I personally have a disposition which habitually seeks the silver lining.

I grew up in a house raised by a well developed market apocalyptic. Dad was an institutional broker. He had been predicting this process for decades. In January, he tried to kill himself, because despite the fact that he saw it coming, it devastated him to be correct. He survived the attempt, only to die of pancreatic cancer a few months later, penniless.

It has always been a struggle for me to get out of bed because of this surrounding darkness, so on a personal level my bright outlook – is more of a personal survival strategy – to keep my own head so to speak.

But yes. I am right there with you.

I didn’t mean to dismiss you in particular with regard to looking into the minds of others… I just want to make people aware of the problems of using it as a strategy to convince another. More often then not it’s a way to raise a wall between you and the person you wish to convince – even if you are spot on! ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Liz M owner hyperlocavore 3 months ago on Wordpress

I have to disagree with Andre – and object to both sides spending an awful lot of time playing Dr Freud to people who disagree with them. I did it to a certain degree…but only to say let’s not make cartoons of each other.

I understand Alex, and consider myself a bright green in many ways because I am familiar with the thinking in nanotech and biotech… There are game changing possibilities. Most people in TT stuff, really don’t have a grasp of the potentials in either field. I am dubious of the market bringing really transformative tech (too many embedded oppositional interests.) I think of the power of Microsoft andhow it was used to crush innovation in operating systems. We do not in the main use the best of the best operating systems, that’s capitalism.

But I do understand that there are two camps and the TT people do not in the main entertain advances or problem solving possibilities of either nano or biotech or simply redesign. I don’t think it’s ‘grasping at straws’ to do so.

Of course techies and scientists have a bias towards solving problems and defining problems in new ways. The do believe any problem is solvable. (Not commenting on whether this is rational.) People who are more grounded in the humanities have a much more bleak picture of humanity – because our focus has always been on human folly and frailty, through study of history,lit and psychology. Because I have a foot in both camps I honestly flip flop between bright and dark green…Which I have demonstated in this thread.

Am I wrong here? ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Shane Hughes 3 months ago on Wordpress

was it Martin Luther King who blew wide open the campaign for rights for black Americans, when he re-framed the approach as civil rights instead of black rights? i.e. all the American peoples rights where being infringed. I think we have a similar issue of having to re-frame the approach in a way that takes it out of the green ghetto. It’s up to us to re-present the problems and solutions so that people realise that we’re all on the same side. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

André Angelantoni 3 months ago on Wordpress

@Jason, sorry, I went back to Alex’s post and saw that I got your view wrong

@John, since I think it’s pretty much impossible to get a disparate group of people in different countries of the world to align on what TT should represent (”capitalism or no capitalism? sustainable or not sustainable? emergency planning or just social transformation?”), I actually think the approach Rob et al are taking is just fine. They have sparked a reason to work together (call it collapse or just a lower-energy lifestyle) and a basic framework for organizing people.

And there does seem to be a willingness to steer the ship as new ideas come up, even if that doesn’t always show up on a local level. Jody witnessed people “doing it by the book” and thought that might come from TT but I think she bumped into a facet of human being more than of TT — that when a book is present some of us seem to relate to it like “the word.” (Sound familiar?) I have had to catch myself when I want to ascribe something to TT by asking, “Did I just bump into a human thing or a TT thing?” More often than not I decide I’ve bumped into a human thing.

What I *wouldn’t* like to see is any weakening of the basic premise that collapse has begun (we’ve come down the first stair step in my Early Staircase Model) and will accelerate. I think it’s pretty unlikely TT will do this but still worth mentioning for we saw the group Zero Population Growth morph into “Population Connection,” for instance.

I do believe I understand where Alex is coming from in one important sense and I want to relate it here in hope of showing people the futility of spending much time working with Alex to have him see what we see. Sure, keep the conversation going a little because some cross pollination is always good but Alex will likely never give up his view that collapse is avoidable until it actually happens. The reason why is exactly what Jason just mentioned about not wanting to cross his emotional line. Here is how I came to the view I have first-hand.

I moved to California in 1999 to create a startup company. I raised an initial angel round then I went to the market looking for my first round in April 2000. You might recall that was the month the tech bubble started to burst.

Over the subsequent months, I kept up the money hunt even though it got harder and harder even to get in to see people. I was bleeding money. What kept me going was the belief that there was a chance — however small — that I could find an investor who believed in the vision and wanted to risk some capital.

The whole process stopped not because I threw in the towel but because I ran out of money. And right up to the moment it became clear for me that I didn’t have the cash to pay the employees beyond the next paycheck, I saw it as my duty to play full out until the buzzer went off. There was no way in the world I was going to stop until I was forced to stop.

Looking back with some more business maturity, were I to do it over I would not have spent every dime of my and my angels’ money. I would have noticed earlier that the trend was going a certain way and that the possibility of it going differently given the market and my company’s idea was so small as to be not worth risking the additional capital.

I believe Alex is in exactly the same place I was. His identity is wrapped up with the work he as done for the past five years as one of the leading people whose job is to head off collapse. He expects himself and is likely expected by his team, his funders and the public at large to keep going until the very end.

It will take a transformative moment for him to change the course he is on. The trouble is that when in a space like I was (and he likely is now) the mind tends to push away opportunities for those transformative moments. The hold his vision for the future has on him is so strong it actually filters out opposing and valid counter-evidence.

I’ve recognized the space Alex is in with many, many people, particularly in the climate change community. Their identity is bound up with stopping climate change and they simply will not entertain the possibility that there won’t be business as usual around to allow their well crafted plans to reduce CO2 emissions to operate. They will happily talk of CO2 wedge reductions and plug-in cars forever if you let them.

So, by all means, spend *some* time engaged in a conversation with Alex and other people like him but let’s not for a moment expect that they will see what we see. Have the conversation and then move on to someone else. There are millions of people in each of our respective countries — lots of them will find that the message of TT makes perfect sense and are ready to get down to work.

The others will simply not allow the message to alter their identity until their identity finds itself naked in a new world. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Jason 3 months ago on Wordpress

“For example, is it assumed within Transition that in the future there is no place for any kind of capitalism? Or is it that we need a different kind of capitalism?”

We need to keep refining it certainly. Greer’s latest is on that:

http://www.thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com

But that’s a by-road. In the case of Steffen it is just simple emotional blindness . His site is based on the idea that collapse is avoidable, therefore collapse may not be mentioned, and those who mention it are unethical.

No reasoning is given for this, because there can be no good reasoning — it is simple faith. He is one of the many who still have faith in the ability of progress to solve literally every problem facing humanity; the more responsible TT attitude of trying to *alleviate* the inevitable difficulties crosses an *emotional* line that he does not want to cross. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Jody 3 months ago on Wordpress

Running the risk of getting thoroughly attacked by loads of Transition fans, I am going to suggest that Alex Stephen just might have some raised some valid ideas in his post. Nevertheless I agree that he was quite patronizing and insulting. He also does misrepresents Transition’s attitude towards collapse (in my experience). He does not really understand the process, the movement building, the learning and the work that is happening towards systemic change that is taking place as a result of the movement.

On the other hand, Rob suggests that Transition needs to ask itself if it has a communication problem. I think communication is a problem and has leads to misunderstandings such as is the case with some of Alex’s critique. But I would also suggest that there are more issues at hand that are often raised as a critique of Transition but rarely dealt with by the movement in a serious fashion. These issues leave the movement open to critiques such as Alex’s – and also keeps Transition from engaging many other people working at social/political transformation. Here is my brief summary of the main problems, framed as suggestions.

I would like to see Transition evolve to a culture that encourages more critical self analysis and a little less cult-like allegiance to Rob & the handbook. There are several points within Alex’s critique that could inform our work. He definitely could have been more diplomatic – but Transition can come across as quite doctrinaire because of a lack of debate within the movement on important ideas. I become very frustrated with my colleague at TTBrixton quoting from the handbook when we were discussing issues as if ‘well the handbooks says it so it must be true!’

I would like to see the movement engage with other political struggles. Although many individual Transitioners are actively attempting to bring these struggles into their local initiatives the movement is often seen as apolitical. I understand that this is seen as a good starting point to engage new people, but without solidarity with other issues Transition appears to be elitist and survivalist for a relatively privileged few. This also effects our ability to engage with diverse audiences. Diversity needs to happen – but the culture of Transition means it is still not happening.

I would like to see Transitioners create more robust governance and decision making processes and organizations to engage with change on all levels – personal, community, bio-regional, national and global. We cannot build systems/organizations that will offer any kind of ability to weather difficult times ahead by expecting a few over worked Transition volunteers to rebuild community infrastructure as a full time volunteers. We need to engage with people as local people but also as workers in their professional lives taking the transition ethos into working environments to make the change happen in a sustainable fashion on a personal level. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Jason 3 months ago on Wordpress

Andre — wrong end of the stick, sorry! I was on your side in the debate to start with, but didn’t happen to know of your existence.

Reply

John Mason 3 months ago on Wordpress

Interesting comments from all, and I concur with Andre about the usefulness of developing an in-depth understanding of the issues – as a geologist myself, the resources bit of the equation was not too difficult, but I have had to learn an awful lot of economics to get the full picture!

Everywhere I look, there are people of the mindset that you and Liz refer to, and this is perhaps unsurprising when one considers that western-style consumerism is as powerful a thing as any of the mainstream religions. One view, that might well be valid, is that denial of the issues at hand is similar to denial of death, something Monbiot explores in his blog this week:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/

(…When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it and increasing their striving for self-esteem…..)

Now, I would say that, for people whose lives have been built on the perpetual growth consumerist paradigm, the very notion that it is coming to an end may well cause reaction in a similar manner. This is a plausible explanation for some of the difficulties experienced in getting the Transition message across: a key feature of people involved in Transition is that we have somehow managed to accept that the party will not go on and on and are willing to attempt to tackle this.

If the research that Monbiot describes is correct in its findings, then it follows that what Andre says:

“In the meantime, my view is very pragmatic: we should keep finding the people who are open to listening and ready to roll up their sleeves. If someone doesn’t get it after the case is made, just move along to someone else. There’s simply no time to spend on people whose feet are nailed to the floor when there are *other* people who would get to work if only they knew what is being created — and what is at stake.”

is an accurate assesssment of the best way forward.

When I started out with Transition in 2007, I was convinced that if people understood the basics of the problem, then it would be job done and whole communities, not just certain sectors, would pull together before the problems started. Two and a half at times frustrating years later, I realise just how naive that sentiment was, and the quote I pasted from the Monbiot blog above is as good an explanation as any I have come across!

I guess the message I have had from this is to crack on with Transition projects open to anybody who wants to get involved (and there are many), and so far as the rest of the population goes, let them come when they are ready!

Cheers – John ... See all content Hide content

Reply

André Angelantoni 3 months ago on Wordpress

whoops, please remove the extra colon in the url.

Reply

Liz M owner hyperlocavore 3 months ago on Wordpress

Another difference is that most Americans identify deeply with road trips, big sky and the open road. Small town life is to a certain degree celebrated, but above that we celebrate moving, mobility and recreating oneself…as needed.

When Europeans rail against that, they should note that their big sky wandering relatives – left for the open space of America. It’s deeper than selfishness, rovers are genetic.

So perhaps the Transition framework is going to be a much more uphill venture here. America is very different, and you won’t understand really how much, unless you try to drive across it. I don’t mean to romanticize it – but car culture is deeply part of our story. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

André Angelantoni 3 months ago on Wordpress

Jennifer, we *are* a bit thickheaded on that point, aren’t we?

It would have been better to have started sooner but simplicity is now being forced up on us. See Frontline’s latest piece ‘Close to Home’ to see how simplicity is inescapable for people in the U.S. (as is cohousing, it seems):

http://tinyurl.com/ycg7tyz

As for other points raised, we should be ok, I think, with people like Alex never ‘getting it’ until it’s so obvious that a five year-old could see that we are heading toward a dramatically less rich and less complex civilization.

Sometimes it truly is possible to see something that another can’t see yet, for whatever reason, especially if one has delved into areas the other hasn’t. For instance, Alex seems not to understand that the global credit contraction we’re experiencing is taking away much of the room to maneuver he thinks is still possible.

Here is another example. I don’t concern myself much any more with climate change legislation. It’s not that climate change is no longer a problem. Far from it. I don’t bother because peak oil and the consequent contraction of the world economy are going to do a better job of lowering our emissions than any climate change legislation with any chance of passing would ever hope to do. Any legislation passed now will soon be seen as irrelevant or will be removed by a backlash from people who think it crazy to make energy more expensive while there is 50% unemployment.

On some level, this is a numbers game. Only three out of ten people are going to get that contraction/transition/collapse are happening now. Only one out of ten will actually do something about it (maybe less) until sufficient outside forces “wake them up,” like their house being foreclosed on. As far as I can tell, there is only a small opportunity to change this ratio significantly. For example, I get pretty much zero traction with this message when I deliver it to people in Silicon Valley. If you all have bumped into the “technology will save us” response, consider that Silicon Valley is its temple.

In the meantime, my view is very pragmatic: we should keep finding the people who are open to listening and ready to roll up their sleeves. If someone (like Harris on the WorldChange comments) doesn’t get it after the case is made, just move along to someone else. There’s simply no time to spend on people whose feet are nailed to the floor when there are *other* people who would get to work if only they knew what is being created — and what is at stake.

Perhaps something might come of Alex and Rob speaking together, but I doubt it. I’ve met too many people now who just won’t get it until the world changes around them and he sounds like one of them (along with that Harris fellow). Nice people with an honorable commitment, but not yet connected to how much the Earth is now on automatic. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

EarthSummit2012 3 months ago on Twitter

RT @SealTheDeal2012: Rob Hopkins Responds to Alex Steffen’s Critique of #TransitionTowns at WorldChanging http://j.mp/40RaAR [Good points]

Reply

SealTheDeal2012 3 months ago on Twitter

Rob Hopkins Responds to Alex Steffen’s Critique of #TransitionTowns at WorldChanging http://j.mp/40RaAR [Good points] #ttmv

Reply

Shane Hughes 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Alex has kind of responded to Rob’s response here;

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010672.html

via an invite to a future debate

Reply

Shane Hughes 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

i’m not sure i’ve articulated this too well.

when Rob asks “how well are we communicating what we are doing?”

i think this is relevant on all levels internally as well as externally. Locally to me someone set up Transition (village name) as an extension of their long term feud with politicians and land owners. this followed with an intellectual discussion about what Transition is and isn’t. I regularly have to try to describe what transition is and is doing to community members but this is invariably tainted by my slant.

anyway i think that there needs to be simplified and clear Transition message that is integrated at all levels. this will help strengthen how we communicate what were doing. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Fourcultures 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Whoops. That should have been:

How to make social change work better.

Reply

AlexSteffen 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

RT @kaskadia Rob Hopkins responds 2 @AlexSteffen ’s Critique of #Transition at @WorldChanging http://bit.ly/2lpH8Y

Reply

Bobbie_Stacey 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Enjoying the volley b/n @AlexSteffen critique of #Transition & Rob Hopkins response. http://is.gd/4Mf3v. Twitter gr8 4 these kinds of links.

Reply

hapa 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

sharon astyk and i had a fight about a similar issue last year (how households and towns in the NE US should handle the possibly crippling heat oil shock of winter 08/09) — so i was surprised to read her saying here pretty much what i thought to.

i really hope this exchange continues. you UK folks, YOU DON’T KNOW how deeply gonzo the US is now — an argument that pits deeply-invested obama fans against believers in a hyperinflationary rapture in 2012, with ‘CSI: american idol edition’ caught in the crossfire. that’s only sort of joking….

the green party here lives in the shadow of ralph nader, a ‘consumer advocate’… thousands of local economies are principally funded by land development, hence “housing bubble”… etc….

this exchange now falls on few ears but alex’s particular concerns of scalability and mass impact — without becoming empty marketing — need thorough thinking through.

what i’d like to see come out of this is an integration because it’s likely what alex wants is a combination of existing UK politics, transition UK, cybertopia, and the kind of breathtaking trillion-scale industrial spectacle that only a country that builds millions of cars a year can put together. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

kaskadia 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Rob Hopkins Responding 2 @AlexSteffen ’s Critique of #Transition at @WorldChanging http://bit.ly/2lpH8Y #relocalization #resilience #peakoil

Reply

Jason Bradford 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

My experience in Willits CA was that people either “got it” or despised our early version of transition. We thought a lot about the messaging, but in all likelihood people saw “who” was involved and not what they were saying or doing. The small town atmosphere allowed pre-existing stereotypes to dominate. The traditional political and environmental activists had a hard time breaking free from the past (at least in others eyes) and so the movement wasn’t taken seriously across the board.

Emotional responses are obviously irrational and cruel. This is going on right now in Willits, where the city council has voted to destroy a permaculture garden that was installed on public land adjacent to my home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhHLZesjZRU

It is blatant pettiness and rather shocking since I am such a nice fellow and can’t remember ever getting into any personal arguments with the 3 men who now dominate the city council.

I just share this to warn folks that if somebody like Alex who you’d think was on “our side” can write material like this, just imagine what the quiet old conservatives (i.e., as in resistant to change) are thinking? I can see now that they didn’t say much, but underneath the surface they simmered and once they regained power they lashed out in the meanest of ways. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Ann 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

1) I have saved your article for more than the information. I collect brilliant examples of critical thinking. It’s a small collection. Thank you.

2) I was horrified by Alex comment that some people too “smart” to concern themselves with food and children [seed saving and kids clothing swap]. I have an appropriately mature response to that: I was in Mensa for 12 years. I am a teacher and a subsistence farmer. Nyah, nyah, nyah. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Sharon Astyk 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Two further observations. First, I think what is valuable in Steffan’s critique is the observation that Transition seems to be investing a lot of energy in replacing existing infrastructure rather than using what’s already there. In some measures, this confers resilience, since some existing infrastructure is clearly not viable in a lower-energy use future. But that’s not always the case. I do think that pushing local Transition responses to make full use of extant resources – not just food resources, but democratic and social ones – will be a key to whether it is fully successful.

The other criticism I’d make is your defense of Transition as more “bright green” than dark green – I don’t think that holds water. Transition may be an optimistic movement, but it is also a movement that holds localisation and low energy life at its center, and this is one of its virtues. Alex Steffan is right about optimism, but wrong about the viability of a high technology renewable energy society, at least on a large scale. At best what he seem to offer is a panacea for the rich world – some of you can still have what you had.

The merits of Transition are that they don’t share this thinking – the future is for everyone, and at the center of our predicament is the need of the Global North to abandon its terrible affluence. Transition is wise enough to recognize this, and while you needn’t accept Steffan’s language, I think trying to ally yourselves with the idea of Bright Green is a bad one – the global game of chicken in which everyone aspires to the same affluence manifestly ends in disaster. There is no need for you to apologize for not wanting to join that club.

Sharon Astyk ... See all content Hide content

Reply

randyrichmond 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

RT @abundantsink Rob Hopkins responds to Alex Steffen’s Critique of Transition at WorldChanging http://ow.ly/yS98 @transitiontown

Reply

Marella Fyffe 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Hi Rob,

I am glad that you have addressed what Alex has said,because in the last 24 hours I had to argue the case for Transition against two separate yet similar diatribes. I found that it forced me to sit down and think through where my argument was weak, or negative or lacked credence. This led me to think well if I am finding this tough going there must be a lot of people out there in the same situation. You have very succinctly, put together a useful piece that people can use again and again whenever they come up against NO, helping us all to get beyond NO. Andrew is right when he says “How well are we communicating what we are doing”? in the heartland of Totness extremely well, but the outer reaches of Transition Land many many of us are playing catch up even with all the books, online resources etc etc .

The two biggest challenges as I see for Transitioners is how to deal with NO in

an elevator style speech .

And how to talk to business/junior chamber/lions/solicitors/lawyers/accountants and so on, about permaculture design underpinning Transition in a way that we are speaking to their listening.

Keep going we are with you all the way. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

TransitionStAlb 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

Rob Hopkins clarifies what Transition is about. http://tinyurl.com/yb7o6g3 #transitiontowns

Reply

Rob 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

“For me though the piece-de-resistance was the idea that we would be better spending time trying to reform banking regulations than swapping seeds or kids clothes. I’ll look forward to the “Reforming Banking Regulations for Dummies” book for guidance before I try and make sense of that suggestion”.

Beautiful Andrew, thanks. Still giggling about that…

Reply

Jennifer Lauruol 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Rob, I agree with Andrew–I think Alex is simply jealous of Transition’s success and viral success. A lot of the success is due to your own modesty, a trait he obviously doesn’t share.

Reply

andrew ramponi 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Rob

It seems most likely that Alex wrote some of the out of context, inaccurate and patronising critique of Transition, not because of an intellectual analysis of it’s flaws, but more through envy or jealousy at it’s success as a rapidly growing movement. After all, envy is a powerful force in creating human misjudgements!

In my opinion we aren’t facing serious problems because of fossil fuel dependency, greedy bankers or corrupt politicians. And most well intentioned communities and movements don’t end because of an inability to solve a practical or intellectual problem. It usually is down to people misjudging the power of the “toddler within”.

Still, I daresay it was worth yourself and others writing a full and detailed response to his criticisms, even though your final sense of bewilderment said it all.

For me though the piece-de-resistance was the idea that we would be better spending time trying to reform banking regulations than swapping seeds or kids clothes. I’ll look forward to the “Reforming Banking Regulations for Dummies” book for guidance before I try and make sense of that suggestion. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Graham Burnett 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Also slightly puzzled that in the ‘Deep Green’ scenario concepts such as ‘Bioregionalism’, ‘Localism’ (does that mean Localisation?) and a ‘rejection of consumerism’ are lumped in with (or ‘mired’) with ‘Doomerism’ as if these are ‘bad things’????? And where does that leave presumably ‘Bright Green’ ‘entrepeneurs’ such as Ben Law who seems to me to be a marketing genius, maunfacturing all manner of products from his woodland including fencing, charcoal, furniture, shingles, yurts and clothes pegs; writing books, running a consultancy service or 2; running green building courses; charging for tours of Prickley Nut Woods and just about anything else you can think of, yet is totally grounded in his locality, with all resources being sourced bioregionally????? ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Andrew - Trafford Eco Hosue 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

A very good critique Rob, I think the last sentence maybe shows the real challenge: “how well are we communicating what we are doing?”

That does seem to be the challenge doesn’t it. The initiatives are so broad-ranging (as they need to be) that communicating the whole spectrum of Transition is always going to be hard, and will often result in people cherry-picking what they think is missing or wrong.

Perhaps if you don’t like what you think Transition is about, maybe you should get involved and make sure your local group is heading in the right direction – and is communicating that effectively? ... See all content Hide content

Reply