Who has read "The Transition Handbook" by Rob Hopk

[Jakell]

**Havent read the book so just a guess**

The people writing and buying these books are of the anything can be solved through discussion brigade.

The Independant Republic of Ruthin wont need a conscript army and a barrier wall to protect itself from Liverpudlian raiding parties, because both sides can sit down over a nice mug of hot coco, talk about their feelings, and realise, theres no reason to smash each others skulls in with rocks.


.

Now that is my sort of post ! I (try to) hold back in here, as this forum seems politely British. Spot on though.

The book, however, is realistic in most areas, just not in this

[DominicJ]

It sounds absolutly mad, but

Greater Manchester has a population of just under 2.5 million, 200 years ago it was just over 400,000.
Since then, its lost masses of farmland, and even in the early 1800, a lot of people worked in industry rather than agriculture.

If those 2.1million excess people dont have food, they will go and take it.

East involves a slog through hills to what looks to be an even more built up area, south and south east looks very green on google maps.

[DominicJ]

I cant change my vote, but I'm on/off reading it at work now

[Jakell]

Adam. Perhaps you would care to step in and make a comment, you're starting to look a bit aloof.

[Adam Polczyk]

Adam. Perhaps you would care to step in and make a comment, you're starting to look a bit aloof.

No Jakell, not aloof. I just don't have a great deal of time.

Thanks RalphW for posting the link...

Adam

[Jakell]

Adam. Perhaps you would care to step in and make a comment, you're starting to look a bit aloof.

No Jakell, not aloof. I just don't have a great deal of time.

Thanks RalphW for posting the link...

Adam

Do you have an opinion about the book?

[2 As and a B]

**Havent read the book so just a guess**

That's what I like, honest prejudice.

[DominicJ]

That's what I like, honest prejudice.

Having now read it, I stand by my prediction.

[Welsh Wizard]

I have just finished it and can safely say that in my view it is distinctly average. The writing style was grating, and the earlier comment about the irritating format is spot on. There is a small set of chapters overviewing the challenges of peak oil and climate change, which will mostly be familiar to readers of this forum. The tree hugging then begins in earnest. I totally agree with the author that relocalisation and resilience is necessary but it mostly came across as a list of all the treehugging permaculture projects that have so far made only the tiniest of impacts on the problem.

Blueprint for the future: yes if your vision of the future involves loving your neighbour and singing Kum-ba-ya while knitting a hat for your goat.

Marks deducted for being a tree hugger: 3.

Marks deducted for 3/4 of the book being filler:40

Marks deducted for refusing to acknowledge the true red-in-tooth-and-claw future as the most likely: 50

Bonus marks for at least writing about peak oil:100

Overall end of term report:C-

Wouldn't waste the time reading it again.

[Adam Polczyk]

Do you have an opinion about the book?

Having read up to Chapter 12 I am now able to form an opinion of the content.

I think that it explains clearly the Transition Initiative as a response to PO and GCC. Unlike the online version the published book has lots of illustrations, additional side-bars and quotes from other influential people to help get the point across.

It provides a wealth of information giving a massive head start to anyone thinking of starting a Transition Initiative in their local community. It documents the ideas and practical experience gained from the communities already working hard to make these projects succeed.

It makes the case for collective action at the grass roots level to bring about an energy descent with the potential to mitigate the worst outcomes of PO.

Importantly it shows how focussing on the possibility of a more positive vision of the future can succeed in motivating people to take collective action. Whereas focussing on the possible negative outcomes simply drives people into denial and inaction.

I would even go so far as to say that it has the potential to be one of the most important and influential books of our time.

Adam

[Jakell]

Do you have an opinion about the book?

Importantly it shows how focussing on the possibility of a more positive vision of the future can succeed in motivating people to take collective action. Whereas focussing on the possible negative outcomes simply drives people into denial and inaction.

I would even go so far as to say that it has the potential to be one of the most important and influential books of our time.

Adam

I agree that it is a very good book.

But I think it's refusal to discuss any negative outcomes shows that the author thinks that people are childlike and need to be shepherded (or maybe be you do, as this is your interpretation, and the author has merely made an omission).

People are much more robust than this, they can contemplate light and dark at the same time, and can draw more realistic conclusions than any new-age distillation will allow.

[Adam Polczyk]

But I think it's refusal to discuss any negative outcomes shows that the author thinks that people are childlike and need to be shepherded (or maybe be you do, as this is your interpretation, and the author has merely made an omission).

People are much more robust than this, they can contemplate light and dark at the same time, and can draw more realistic conclusions than any new-age distillation will allow.

I do not think the author made an omission. Figure 8 on pages 46 and 47 entitled "Spectrum of Post-Peak Scenarios" surveys 20 possible outcomes including "sudden and catastrophic societal collapse".

To my knowledge this book is unique in that it is about guiding and motivating others taking constructive action in preparing their communities for PO.

With this goal in mind I don't believe there is any value in dwelling on possible negative outcomes. This view is already very well catered for and does nothing to motivate people to take action that might actually make a difference. Most people grasp that part of PO quite readily. The bit they really struggle with is seeing any future other than "societal collapse".

The book seeks to present how we can create a vision of the future that is worth moving towards and shows how it might be possible to get there if we work together and start now.

My experience and that of others who have commented on this forum is that most people simply 'switch-off' as soon as you start to terrify them with how bad it could be without giving them any hope of an alternative. This is simply a non-starter if your goal is to motivate people into collective action.

Adam

[Jakell]

But I think it's refusal to discuss any negative outcomes shows that the author thinks that people are childlike and need to be shepherded (or maybe be you do, as this is your interpretation, and the author has merely made an omission).

People are much more robust than this, they can contemplate light and dark at the same time, and can draw more realistic conclusions than any new-age distillation will allow.

My experience and that of others who have commented on this forum is that most people simply 'switch-off' as soon as you start to terrify them with how bad it could be without giving them any hope of an alternative. This is simply a non-starter if your goal is to motivate people into collective action.

Adam

You're quite correct in that most people 'switch-off' when negative scenarios are discussed, along with 100% of children. It's called denial and has to be confronted, not avoided. If you look in the psychology section you will see people dicussing this very issue.

I have not at any time considered not giving people an alternative. But they have to understand what it is an alternative to.

I have not noticed people in this and other Peak Oil forums 'switching-off' In fact they are beginning to make (or are on) the journey. It is the general public who are likely to switch off, however, this is not a reason to patronise them.

[Adam Polczyk]

Jakell

Well, I didn't feel I was being patronised. I felt that given its objective the book got the balance right.

I am happy that we can both agree that it is a good book.

Adam