TW Book Study Group

Comment

Comment by Garrett Snedaker on March 9, 2013 at 10:04pm

I'm sorry Kendra and I weren't able to make it to the most recent meeting. Anyone care to summarize the highlights? If not, no biggie. Thanks.

Comment by David MacLeod on February 12, 2013 at 10:12pm

I just posted a blog post on "Aspects and Perspectives on Localization and Relocalization."  This relates to some of my comments at the book study group last week.

I have a lot of short excerpts from 8 articles, which adds up to a lot of words...especially if you check out each article referenced.  I don't expect everyone to do that, but I think this is an important area of study because so much of what the Transition Initiative movement is about is related to this concept.

Thanks again to Garrett for the links to the articles by J.M. Greer.

http://transitionwhatcom.ning.com/profiles/blogs/aspects-and-perspe...

Comment by Monica Sjursen on February 12, 2013 at 11:27am

Thanks for a great study group all!  The movie I mentioned is Samsara, made by the same people that did Baraka.  Only more intense.  Highly recommended!

Comment by Garrett Snedaker on February 9, 2013 at 11:49pm

Sure thing, David. I look forward to your post.

Thanks for the links, Joy.

Comment by David MacLeod on February 9, 2013 at 8:01pm

Garrett,

Thanks for the links to the Greer articles.  These are excellent add-ons informing our discussion about localization/relocalization.  I'm going to use these in the post I am planning - a compendium of links showing different perspectives or aspects of this issue.

Regarding chapter 5 and "green tech stability" fantasy, that thought briefly passed through my mind as well when reading.  I think the intention was to set aside for the moment all the negatives that can easily come to mind when thinking about a "powered down" future, and instead put some focus on positive visioning. Bringing some balance, since we sometimes tend to dwell on the negative; and also because without having a positive vision to shoot for, most people will not engage. 

I don't think Hopkins is making the argument that we maintain the status quo by replacing everything with more sustainable alternatives; he's just saying that if proper preparation is put into place, there could be many positive benefits of a "powered down" future.

The key point: "A large part of our intention to bring this about arises from our being able to imagine it, having a vision of such a future - bein able, on some level, to conceive of what it would look like, sound like, smell like and feel like."

I hope to have the opportunity to read A Theory of Power by Jeff Vail at some point.

Comment by Joy Patterson on February 9, 2013 at 12:37am

One movie recommendation is Manufactured Landscapes. 

Andrew mentioned 180 Degrees South.

Here are some inspirational (short) videos: Gratitude and The Important Role of Mushrooms

Comment by Garrett Snedaker on February 8, 2013 at 12:38am

I also wish to raise an issue I took with Chapter 5 (or at least the portion on energy) of The Transition Companion. To me, it read a bit like "green tech stability" fantasy. Maybe that's a misreading, but that's what I took from it. I think it's important to recognize that we're simply going to have to make do with less energy. And we should use less energy anyway if for no other reason than the fact that our current way of life - in post-industrial/technological society - is harmful to fellow humans, other species and Earth itself (it's a social justice issue). I don't find it feasible or desirable to go on living the extravagant lifestyles many of us, myself included, live by way of fossil fuel alternatives (besides, many of those alternatives can't be constructed without our declining supply of fossil fuels). While I'm sure Hopkins understands that, Chapter 5 gave me a different impression.

By the way, I'd love to form a study group based on A Theory of Power by Jeff Vail. It can be read online for free (http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html). If any of you want to read it or portions of it or reviews of it and are intrigued enough to discuss the book with me, let me know. I read it once a few years ago, and I plan on re-reading it soon (I liked it enough to buy a hard copy--I don't really like reading off of a screen, even though I do it regularly).

Comment by Garrett Snedaker on February 8, 2013 at 12:04am

I'm going to post links to 2 John Michael Greer articles that relate to a portion of our discussion this evening (I may also post them on the main forum). I'll then share some thoughts. And I'd be interested in reading/hearing what other folks think about what he wrote or about what I've written below.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-01-30/we-don-t-live-in-never...

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-02-07/the-center-cannot-hold

Personally, Greer is making a lot of sense. Now, I'm someone who was always vehemently opposed to what you might call right wing ideology (the kind I was exposed to growing up). I went from registered Democrat (at 18 and into my mid-20s) to registered Green to - at age 35 - left wing anarchist (in philosophy if not in practice--tough to practice anarchy under present circumstances) who thinks most of what separates the 2 major political parties in the US is cosmetic (and that "third" parties merely present a way to replace one power structure with another). Never did I or will I subscribe to the platform of a right wing party, be it Republican or Libertarian or Constitution. There's a point to me providing that background. The point is that it's not easy to accept that - on some level - right wing ideology rests on a grain of truth. That uneasiness is no reason, however, to not accept it.

That said, my acceptance (that massive bureaucracies are disastrous) by no means suggests I accept the bigotry or love of war, for instance, that I associate with that same ideology. And I remind myself that the Koch-funded Tea Party types aren't really advocating for decentralization. As I said during our discussion, they're advocating for a change in who makes up the centralized force (replacing one giant bureaucracy with another essentially). Really, they're advocating for what's been the status quo for quite some time now...continuing corporatization under the guise of some mythical thing called a "free market."

I like Transition because it's not hierarchical, and I'd lose interest real fast if that changed. We were wondering why Transition hasn't yet attracted a mass following. While I hope that more people will take part in the Transition experiment (I really think that's what it is, an experiment), I think the temptation to become centralized, so to speak, will grow stronger. Just something to be wary of.

I'm a believer in Dunbar's Number. Think about how different our discussion tonight would have been had it consisted of, say, 100 people. Or 1000. Or 320 million. Or 7+ billion. Clearly, we would have had to break up into small groups. Now, imagine some entity (let's call it a strong central government) trying to force each group to adhere to strict guidelines. Is that a recipe for building stable social relationships? From Wikipedia: "Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships." Without stable social relationships, what have we got? Chaos, which is - somewhat ironically - what people often associate with anarchy. And by chaos I guess what I really mean is the status quo, the continuing destruction of the global ecosystem.

Comment by Joy Patterson on December 30, 2012 at 1:09pm

3218 Firwood is located near Northwest and Birchwood near the WTA green line. Google Map 

Look for a no-grass lawn. 

 Tea will be available.