Calling all geeks and nerds...

[Tris Shirley]

There is a collegial discussion just beginning among those planning The Great Unleashing.  Since that is a smallish group, I’m hoping that others might participate if the issue is raised here.  I trust you have all seen the various blurbs about Day -1, the great extravaganza/circus/convention explaining what we are all about.  On Day-2, the truly motivated will reassemble, essentially to define the future of the Transition Movement in Whatcom County.

My assumption is that the people who show up on Day-2 will be a lot “like” those who are already engaged in Transition work here and elsewhere.  They may not be as far along in their learning or thinking or passion, but people who grasp the future challenge and are willing, if not desperate, to do something about it.  These are likely to be people who will be greatly moved by a sense of common interest and community.  And with the stimulating environment created through Day-2 facilitation,  I think we can expect a lot of creativity as well.

I doubt that anyone ever solved a difficult problem without passion and creativity, but those two essential ingredients are not sufficient by themselves to ensure success.  I believe that a large number of creative, motivated people can achieve almost anything – but they have to have a clear goal.  Some will say that we do.  In our case, the goal is to have our community continue to meet the needs of its members despite much more expensive energy and a desire to minimize GHG emissions. 

But the needs of the community are many and varied.  While we can think of an unlimited number of things that might help the community function under such challenging circumstances, which of those things are most beneficial, which are most urgent, which are a waste of time and energy, when have we done enough, when have  we gone too far?  You can’t answer those questions with a only a “general” understanding of the problem.  Somehow we have to develop a more detailed statement of the problem, probably quantifying many aspects of it.  I have no illusion that this can be done with ease or great accuracy, but we will learn a lot in the effort.

Relying on emotions only to lead us in solving a great number of very complex problems is a recipe for failure.  If a bunch of people are marooned on an island, they may have lots of fear and hope, but what they may need is a boat.  To get the boat, they need someone who understands how boats work; what are the essential elements that make them work.  With that technical foundation, the passion and creativity of the group can serve to build a boat out of whatever is available.  Absent a clear understanding of the essentials, lots of work can lead to disappointing results: a boat that sinks, or can’t be steered, or can’t be sailed or rowed.  And in our case, if the urgency many feel is warranted, we don’t have a lot of time or work to waste.

I believe we have to pose a specific question that can be answered, even if it is a very difficult one.  We have to ask questions like,

“Mr/Ms Grocer, what will happen to your food prices if energy costs triple?”

 “Mr/Ms. Businessperson, what will happen to your employees if energy costs triple?” 

“Mr. Mayor, what will happen to the cost of essential services if energy costs triple?”

 “Mr/Ms Resident, what will you do if private transportation costs triple?” 

Of  course, if the businessperson says “We’ll go out of business”, then we can tell the Mayor that he won’t have any taxes and the resident that he won’t have a job.

The specific question we ask is relatively unimportant.  We just need the question to describe circumstances that the respondent thinks are plausible, so they will respond.  And the question needs to describe circumstances that will trigger the kind of changes and adjustments in the economy that will become realistic at some point – without trying to predict when.    

The point here is that the community is now entirely dependent on its economy, just as it is on air and water.  Until we understand how to analyze the impact of rising energy prices and constrained GHG emissions on that economy, we can have no reasoned decisions about what might fail and what might survive when the great experiment begins. 

We don’t know where we need alternatives, we don’t know the size of the demand or the scale of those alternatives, we don’t know how to evaluate alternative alternatives, and we don’t know what tools and materials and resources we have to create those alternatives.  Without some analysis of the problem, we are shooting in the dark.

I can already hear the cries of the anguished saying we can’t wait for a bunch of geeks with spreadsheets in somebody’s basement to come up with what will be wrong answers before we do anything.  WE HAVE ACT NOW.  Well, fine.  Anything anybody does in the near future just gives us more data about what alternatives people will accept, how efficient those alternatives are, and how productive the people are in operating them.  Given a choice of acting or analyzing, to me the decision is obvious.  We have to do both.