Transition Towns Forum » Transition Timeline

Transition Timeline Feedback

(28 posts)
  • Started 11 months ago by bobthorp
  • Latest reply from JohnMason
  1. bobthorp
    Member

    Shaun

    TT is a great contribution to the transition but with much work do. I've found part two the most interesting. My experience in previous feedbacks and blogs is that some transition folk don't take kindly to critical feedback ( I come from a different tradition that accepts criticism and self-critcism as part and parcel of the process of improvement - no matter, so I'll keep it brief and constructive. I don't have too much or a problem with what you do envision (not at this juncture), my issues are more with what you don't. This is unfair of me, so below is a first run past of "work and enterprise". I'm sure others are needed that create visions for "decision making and democracy", "planning and distribution" etc.

    Transition Vision Looking back from 2027

    Work, Enterprise

    The deep and long global recession between 2009-2015 wiped out many companies, jobs, the value of shares, savings, pensions and other capital assets. Shaken by the collapsing system, people began to look for answers and create practical solutions. Where companies failed, employees at first responded to being thrown out of their jobs by occupying the their places of work and demanding better redundancy packages but as it became obvious that “money” was becoming increasingly worthless, “employees” began to take over their work places and put the physical and the human capital back in to productive use. The “elected” government at first responded by using the police and army to forcefully evict people from their shops, factories and offices but the widespread nature of the “useful work” movement and its popular support typified by the view “that if the employers can’t make it pay – then the employees should be given a fair chance to have a go” led to a government re-think

    Faced with the challenges of how to run a “business”: how to acquire finance and materials; how to plan the utilisation of buildings, machinery, computers, control systems and people to create products and service that people wanted or needed, was to say the least a steep learning curve. Many different organisational models emerged and evolved as the collective genius of the “workforce” was unleashed on the problem. It became popular to look at the practical responses of others faced with a breakdown of the market system. Lessons and examples of people running the enterprise without “capitalists” were found across the globe and throughout history. Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Argentina provided recent inspiring models but examples, were found closer to home in the shop stewards movement of the 1970s, Tower Colliery and the many co-operative and social enterprises that had developed. By far the most popular and rewarding models were highly participatory, self-organising enterprises that chose not to adopt the single “controlling mind” models or accept that a “co-ordinator class” of managers was required.

    Many sceptics and opponents of the “useful work” movement said that “employees” did not have the skills and intellect to run business and that they would soon fail. What the sceptics had not understood was how much knowledge, expertise and co-operative behaviour was embodied in the workforce. Internet and intranets, equal opportunities policies, team working, meetings round the water cooler, quality circles and kaizan had all helped to bridge the divisions of labour that had existed in old manufacturing.

    Another unforeseen development, at the time, was the way people began to re-interpret “business” objectives. At first, self-organised workplaces simply tried to recreate a business as usual model and made growth and profit their first objective. However, when people took over the reins they began to ask questions about what was work for and what role did their enterprise play in the life of the wider community, economy and environment. New social and environmental objectives became more important than the bottom line. The skilled crafts people of the Barrow shipyards, for example, turned their nuclear sub building skills to building a new fleet of carbon neutral cargo and passenger ships. Job satisfaction gained by participating in running an enterprise making social usefully products and services became more important and possible as new models of ownership developed. Making quality products and services that lasted and were sustainable became more important than chasing volume. Self-organised workplaces began to use productivity and efficiency gains to work fewer hours – by 2027 the worklife balance had been radically transformed with people coming together for only a few hours a week to engage in “workplace” based labour. More time was spent participating in planning and running their local enterprises, community and economy. Less time as a “wage slave” meant more time for creative family, educational, cultural and recreational activities.

    More imaginative work to do……………

    Do a diary week in the life of or a year in the life of…2018….2027….2050?

    The old artificial and alienating divisions between “work” and “life” became blurred as more of the social relations to the “means of production, distribution and exchange” are not only localised but socialised – moved from purely private ownership to a mix of private, workforce and community ownership. By 2050 “private ownership” of the means of production etc is no longer the defining and organising principle of society.

    Within the enterprise: how is it planned, organised and regulated to achieve the right/required quality of product or service, how does it self-organise to align goals, tasks, procedures, resources (people, materials, equipment etc) to the efficient and effective production of goods and services?
    How do participatory enterprises secure external resources (material, finance, knowledge inputs) from the community or society and how does it distribute (markets) and exchange (money) the goods and services it creates (outputs)?

    How do socialised services (health, education, governance) become more participatory and integrated with other productive enterprise?

    What about the dialectic between the character of the economic base and the civil superstructures? How to work round the co-ordinator class or top-down party models?

    How could pay and differential issues be resolved between different functions in the enterprise – should the manager-co-ordinator-leader function be paid more at all?

    How does the lone creative, intellectual or craft worker relate to the community and organised/productive enterprise. What role for the entrepreneur?

    How has our behaviour as a consumer evolved and changed?

    Macro-economic vision? What to measure at the big aggregated levels to make sense of the new social relations and societal goals.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  2. Cliff
    Member

    'pay'?
    If we work because otherwise the people we know don't get food, shelter, music, etc etc, we don't need 'pay'.
    If local communities provide for everyone's basic needs, as an act of decency and solidarity, then why create surplus wealth in order to 'pay' anyone?
    Maybe primitive communism, re-defined for the 21st century Age of Redemption, needs re-visiting.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  3. peat
    Member

    I hope that in the future the only time we 'work' is to benefit the community.
    I think that too many people believe that a lot of our hi-tech industries,ie mobile phones and the world wide web will continue. I cannot see how we will be able to generate the energy to cool and the power needed to keep them running at the rate we use them now.
    Pete

    Posted 11 months ago #
  4. "The Transition Timeline is a great contribution to the transition but with much work to do".

    Thanks for the first part of that Bob, and I couldn't agree more with the second part. In the biggest sense the task of co-creating our future will never end, and in a smaller one, there are some areas of the Transition Vision that are clearly crying out to be fleshed out from the first edition I pulled together. I don't know if you had read that far when you posted, but a number of these are identified at the end of the book (p.169). And critical feedback is very welcome here, though not quite as welcome as your constructive efforts to fill one of those gaps.

    I found many parts of your vision had just the kind of inspiring effect on me that I would hope for the Transition Vision to hold - a sense of "yes, that's the world I want to spend my time creating". Great to see Cliff and Peat's insightful responses too - hopefully we can get more and more high-quality thinking to lead into the Appropedia process of creating the 2nd edition.

    I wouldn't claim any particular expertise in the area of "Work and Enterprise", but my two pennies worth would be to wonder about the industries that just don't have a role anymore. Where do their workers end up - perhaps in retrofitting, food growing, salvage/repair? And how do they get there, through apprenticeships maybe..?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  5. peat
    Member

    I think you are right Shaun. It is going to be a problem. How are we going to transfer people to sustainable jobs quickly? The Victorian work ethic has a lot to answer to, we have to persuade people to look at what income they actually need and cut their hours to suit and then start reducing their outgoings. Politicians and Union leaders will not like the thought of this as they will lose the power they have over the population at the moment.
    Pete

    Posted 11 months ago #
  6. Andrea Berardi
    Member

    Hi Shaun,
    just some quick feedback on the book (I bought it off you at this weekend's Transition Town annual conference :-). It's great to see a number of alternative visions being articulated rather than the singular polarisation between industrial society and utopian/ecological living. However, some equally valid and realistic visions were absent (see for example the brilliant distinctions made by Bob Costanza in http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/art5/manuscript.html -- "Big Government" is one area that could have warranted a deeper exploration in your book). John Dryzek, in his 2005 book "The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses" also presents at least seven distinct discourses and associated visions which were backed up with startlingly clear and in-depth analysis. I guess what I'm saying is that the political ecology literature has a long history of visioning and it may have helped accessing some of that work.

    Another concern that I have is that you repeat Rob's pretty dated view of what systems thinking is about (which has radically changed since the 1970s). The key development is that systems can no longer be conceived as something "out there", but a construct of our own imaginations. Hence we need to encourage particular techniques for surfacing our individual understandings while appreciating diverse perspectives.

    Having said all this, it is really exciting for me to see this kind of approach being taken by the transition movement and I really hope that the great ideas that you present in your book will serve as a platform for rich discussions :-)

    Andrea

    Posted 9 months ago #
  7. Thanks for your kind words Andrea.

    Of course you're right that I wasn't able to read all the available literature on every aspect of the book, so I wonder whether you would be interested in contributing some further insights on future visioning and systems thinking to the collaborative second edition?

    I'm currently a bit snowed under finishing another big piece of work, but look forward to exploring the links you suggest when time allows, learning more, and continuing to enjoy those rich discussions!

    Cheers,
    Shaun

    Posted 9 months ago #
  8. Andrea Berardi
    Member

    Hi Shaun,
    would love to help on http://www.appropedia.org in whichever way I can - I guess you will let people know when the second edition project is up and running on the Appropedia wiki through this forum :-)

    I understand the workload situation and indeed one might think that there is no rush since the first edition is just hot off the press! However, you may want to take advantage of the ideas people come up with as they engage with the book right now while they are still fresh. The discussion forum is great for generic feedback, but in my experience (in updating Open University course materials) gleaning stuff out of discussion fora is a right nightmare :-(. Would much rather have people editing and commenting directly on the text through a wiki. :-)

    I personally think that having the material available within the wiki wouldn't even affect sales of the book -- most people hate reading pages and pages of text online. If anything, it might encourage people to buy the actual printed book!

    Anyway, you've achieved the first fundamental step which is actually to get a first edition out there! And however much we love collaborative approaches, it always takes champions such as yourself and Rob to kick things off -- hopefully this will encourage others to embrace ambitious projects such as the "Transition Timeline" book.

    Andrea

    Posted 9 months ago #
  9. Hi Shaun
    Just read "The transition Timeline"- great work, you deserve recognition for a lot of hard work, well done.
    But I am very concerned about the apparent uncritical promotion of "Alternative" therapies. "Alternative" is applied to medicines without an evidence base; some like homeopathy are a delusion and a money-making scam; acupuncture fairs little better in clinical trials.
    This suggests there is a "New Age" influence in Transition which should be strongly challenged; as a result partly of such beliefs, the UK is now experiencing the worst measles epidemic in decades- "vaccine denial" is strongly supported by many in "alternative" therapies and is based on just a faulty reasoning and ignorance of the evidence as "climate change denial".
    I would like to see Transition explicitly promote evidence-based medicine.
    See my review:
    http://zone5.org/2009/06/29/the-transition-timeline/

    Posted 8 months ago #
  10. "some like homeopathy are a delusion and a money-making scam; acupuncture fairs little better in clinical trials."

    This is a regretable misunderstanding of much holistic (let's use that word, I prefer it) medicine. To practise medicine in an holistic fashion, every patient must be treated as an individual and the underlying causes of any conditions addressed. This approach is NOT scientific, the scientific approach assumes we are all the same and gives a blanket medicine that may suppress identical symptoms. It's an approach that works well in trials and funding applications but doesn't actually help the patients as much as it could. Holistic medicine because of it's very nature cannot be proven in a system of trails designed by the blinkered scientific community that wants to stamp it out.

    The transition movement should at it's heart be promoting effective medicine that will survive an oil shock - and that isn't conventional suppresion. Designing a strategy that relies on a medicine you won't be able to transport or manufacture seems... shortsighted, to say the least. Accupuncture, western herbalism and most importantly nutrition will survive and be vital.

    Before I get hit with the "hippy stick" - I'm a qualified Cisco & Avaya engineer, and a professional geek. I don't live in Totnes (yet). I just know what works and will survive the oil crash, and what won't. I'm happy to accept other people's choices though without slinging unhelpful words like "scam" around. Maybe that's a good message and we should end this here.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  11. Hi Graham,

    I don't mention either homeopathy or vaccine policy in my book, as these are areas I know little about, but as JDE points out, I do recognise that post-industrial medicine is unsustainable. This is why I draw on examples like the Cuban medical system in my exploration of this area. I have responded in full on your blog, although I believe the comment is currently being held for moderation

    Cheers, Shaun

    ps Andrea, I completely agree about getting the Appropedia version up and running asap! I have been busy producing a Parliamentary report on Tradable Energy Quotas over the past few months, but working with the publishers Green Books to arrange this is high on my 'To Do' list.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  12. As my wife as just pointed out, with limited power for refridgeration you won't be able to store much conventional medicine either...

    Posted 8 months ago #
  13. Shaun, apologies but I don't seem to have received your reply on zone5- would you mind sending them again?

    I think though that your and the other responses here are just repeating the curious cognitive dissonance that accepts the science of climate change, while denying the science of medicine. You all imply something along the lines of "modern medicine has problems and is unsustainable; therefore alternative medicine works".
    From a psychological point of view, I am just really curious as to whether you really believe that. Does it make sense to you?
    As I said in my review, the Cuban example is really nothing to do with the use of "alternative" medicine, and everything to do with good use of resources and community care.

    JDE:

    "To practise medicine in an holistic fashion, every patient must be treated as an individual and the underlying causes of any conditions addressed. This approach is NOT scientific, the scientific approach assumes we are all the same and gives a blanket medicine that may suppress identical symptoms. It's an approach that works well in trials and funding applications but doesn't actually help the patients as much as it could. Holistic medicine because of it's very nature cannot be proven in a system of trails designed by the blinkered scientific community that wants to stamp it out."

    Sorry, this is rubbish- a good expression of what we might call "the New Age Health meme". It is this kind of thinking that really worries me about the transition movement and the environmental movement in general.

    This is how a clinical trial works: two groups with similar symptoms are divided in to two randomly. One is given the remedy- homeopathy or acupuncture, say; the other is given a placebo, but neither group knows which it is getting;

    in the case of acupuncture this may take the form of retractable needles or randomly placed needles.

    Everything else is kept the same.
    In trial after trial of this kind (over 200 done in the case of homeopathy for example)the improvements are found to be similar in both groups. Note: generally there is an improvement in both groups because of the placebo effect, but the improvment is similar whether you have the "genuine" therapy or the placebo.
    If you buy into the delusion that clinical trials cannot test anything which happens to call itself "alternative" or "holistic" please read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" for starters.

    Other common defenses of alternatives such as appeals to Quantum physics are equally spurious and deluded; they could be just as easily be used to discredit climate change science (and in fact they often are).

    Think about it: what you are saying is that we should take the effectiveness of these remedies purely on trust or faith, because they cannot even be tested.
    But if they cannot be tested (in fact they can and have been) how do you know they work? NB: anecdotes are not evidence- I can provide plenty of anecdotal "evidence" that these therapies are ineffective!

    We are certainly going to have huge problems in the future as peak oil and climate change impact modern medicine; but we will not help things by trying to replace them with fantasies and placebos. More importantly, this way of thinking is fundamentally unsound and undermines our understanding of science- the very basis of Transition's stance on peak Oil and Climate change.

    With best wishes and hoping for a healthy future for you all
    Graham

    Posted 8 months ago #
  14. Andrea Berardi
    Member

    Before we get into too much mudslinging between Graham and JDE, maybe I could propose a little bit of clarification on the subject matter? :-)

    if I have understood you correctly Graham, the science that you refer to could be defined as "reductionist science" i.e. the isolation of a few components within a system of interest so that we could better understand the relationship between these few components. This is what happens in clinical trials. Potential medicines are applied in standard doses to groups of individuals that generally do not manifest any other health complications apart from those under trial. In this way, the relationship between the potential medicine and the trial group can be precisely compared to a control group exposed to a placebo.

    What I think JDE is referring to is the approach one would take when applying "holistic science" i.e. understanding the complex interrelationships between a range of significant components within a system of interest. Sometimes, health problems do not emerge as a result of simple cause-and-effect relationships between a few components. Lifestyle, genetics, psychology, interplay between a multitude of natural and man-made chemicals in the body, age, climatic conditions, gender, and so many other factors could combine to produce certain symptoms. In these situations, there is rarely a simple solution in the form of a pill (or at least, all that the pill does is to mask some of the symptoms temporarily). What is often the most powerful process during alternative medical treatment is simply the length of time that the practitioner dedicates to you, concomitant with a distinct lack of boundaries with regards to the subjects that can be raised. This form of "therapy" often helps you understand the various contributory factors towards your illness, and is probably the most significant component of the treatment, rather than the singular white homoeopathic pill or acupuncture needle prick. And there is of course plenty of "scientific evidence" that holistic science can help in addressing complex problems -- all you need to do is access the vast amount of literature in systems thinking and practice and/or cybernetics. It is therefore not surprising that there are plenty of universities that provide courses or even whole degrees in this field, including the Open University and Schumacher College.

    At the end of the day, it's not a question of either/or: we either put all our faith behind reductionist science or holistic science. Reductionist science is absolutely essential in resolving the pretty basic problems we will need to contend with, while holistic science can help us get a grip with regards to the more complex ones. Of course, both can be done badly. This is what we need to be careful of -- staying well clear of both the reductionist and the holistic charlatans.

    What would probably help in the next edition of the Transition Timeline is a greater clarification of the principles behind systems thinking/holistic science, so that we can avoid reasonable individuals like Graham having such reactions as a result of his probable experiences with people carrying out shoddy holistic therapies.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  15. Graham, I have resubmitted my comments on your review, but I suspect you may find them in your comment spam folder (as I included links). Please check there, and since you are using Wordpress you could also add me as a 'trusted commenter' so that this problem does not arise again.

    I have copied my comments below as well.

    Cheers,
    Shaun

    --

    Graham,

    I'm glad you enjoyed my book, and thanks for your many kind comments on it and the work I put in - they are much appreciated. As ever though, I will expend more words addressing your constructive criticisms!

    As you state, I acknowledge in the book that the lack of a thorough energy audit is a big loss, and it was simply not feasible for me to take this on a full UK energy audit as an unfunded individual (as Rob will testify, I did have that ambition at one stage!).

    I completely agree that our plans must be visionary, but also need to be grounded and quantified. I am currently working with the Zero Carbon Britain team to this end, but if you have ideas as to other constructive ways to take this work forward, then drop me a line.

    I have been in contact with the authors of the Mayo Energy Audit, and others looking at this area, but could not see a good way of incorporating such work into my book, with its broader scale. In the end, we decided a collaborative approach was best, and so put the book out there as is as a first draft, with the intention that this work could continue from there via the Transition Forums and the Appropedia collaborative drafting process

    Nonetheless, I feel that the scenarios as they stand make a useful contribution. You would likely agree that my broad brushstroke approach is sufficient to highlight the unsustainability of business as usual, which of course leaves us with the task of devising a satisfactory low-energy, low-emissions way of life.

    You say that the book is lacking "some kind of analysis of what a reasonable standard of living might be", but I would argue that the whole Transition Vision section of my book is that very exploration of the possibility of a lower-consumption, higher quality-of-life way of living. Indeed, your Cuba suggestion makes a number of appearances in that section in just that role.

    Yes, energy use reductions of an even more dramatic nature may be required, but getting people thinking about these questions at the local level is a positive step either way. The fundamental point of the book is that if we are actually going to act on any auditing work done then our underlying cultural stories need to shift dramatically. This is where the first edition of my book focuses its efforts.

    Re: your specific comments on population it seems to me that we fundamentally agree. My book makes very clear that both population and consumption must be addressed, and on that we agree. I make no attempt to present it as either/or. I completely agree with Nate Hagens that we are predisposed to increase both our population and our consumption, and he completely agrees with me that "cultural change is likely our only successful path forward" (from his endorsement quote in the front of my book).

    The Transition Timeline also makes clear that consumption is the bigger contributor of the two to our environmental catastrophe. On that you do not challenge the facts but question whether it is a meaningful distinction. It seems to me that it is, but since that does not change the actions we advocate to reduce both, I don't think it's one for us to lose sleep over.

    I was a bit surprised to see that almost half of your review focused on one brief comment on 'alternative' medicines (the quote you pull out being the only mention in the whole book). As I understand it, your strong reaction is really to the "New Age and pseudoscientific " cultural story that you perceive as underlying that quote, although you acknowledge that the book and the wider Transition movement are generally based on verifiable science.

    Your discussions with Rob and others above and in the Transition Timeline forum re: homeopathy, vaccine policy etc I wouldn't presume to comment on. I know little about this, and they are not mentioned in my book. Although I worked with many brilliant people in putting The Transition Timeline I am not a specialist in healthcare, any more than I am a specialist in food and farming.

    Still, I would respond to your comment:

    "Now, certainly the problems with modern medicine are manifold, in particular the over-dependence on oil, horrific levels of waste and a level of corruption amongst Big Pharma. None of this is evidence that alternatives...work".

    Of course this is true. But this unsustainability is evidence that alternatives to the current way of doing things are all we have to try and find something that does work.

    As you say, some 'alternative' medicine works and some doesn't, just like every other kind of medicine. And since large-scale industrialised research trials are just as unsustainable as the rest of industrialised medicine, an interesting question is perhaps how we can organise reliable low-energy tests of efficacy.

    If there is as you say "no way of knowing for sure" without high-energy processes, then we will be left with the process of experiment and local 'anecdote' that tended to humanity for millennia, but perhaps we can do better?

    I think we can agree that instances of 'quackery' exist, and also that instances of corruption and bias in large-scale trials exist, but perhaps we can draw on your interesting analogy between the arguments of climate change denialists and endorsements of alternative medicine.

    As I understand it you are criticising the extrapolation from one cool day, week, month or year to the belief that future periods will also be cool. Such an extrapolation clearly ignores all the evidence collected by climate science as to the long-term trends. In other words, their sample size is vastly too small, but this is not to say that the evidence of that cool day is inadmissible, simply that it is outweighed by the evidence in the other direction.

    In a similar way, taking the fact that a treatment worked for you to mean that it might work for a friend does constitute valid evidence, it is just on a very small sample size. Clearly increasing the sample size is desirable. Yet this kind of trusted advice or 'anecdote' is the basis for a great deal of human behaviour, in all manner of contexts. So how can we increase the sample size on which it is based?

    I'm just pondering out loud here, but maybe some form of internet-based collaborative way of "WeThinking" could increase the sample size of our evidence, without greatly increasing energy demands? Perhaps practitioners could sign up to point all of their clients at the appropriate survey before treating them? Though this idea would depend on opinions as to the sustainability and resilience of the internet of course...

    Thoughts welcome, but anyway, thanks again for your considered and thoughtful review

    All the best,
    Shaun
    www.darkoptimism.org

    ps I tend to agree that the Peak Car estimate should be moved forward - such are the perils of putting anything down in print!

    Posted 8 months ago #
  16. Andrea: sorry, you're just repeating the New Age health meme- with a revision that you think evidence-based medicine and quackery both have a role to play. All this stuff about "holistic approaches" is a red herring- it is just an excuse to avoid the plain fact that there is for the most part no evidence that what are called "alternative" medicine actually is effective.

    "What is often the most powerful process during alternative medical treatment is simply the length of time that the practitioner dedicates to you, concomitant with a distinct lack of boundaries with regards to the subjects that can be raised. This form of "therapy" often helps you understand the various contributory factors towards your illness, and is probably the most significant component of the treatment, rather than the singular white homoeopathic pill or acupuncture needle prick"

    yes, this is called "the placebo effect". Countless clinical trials have demonstrated that, with few exceptions (the alternative field is very broad) it works just as well with sham acupuncture, or sugar pills etc as with the supposed "effective" therapy.

    Therapies that are shown to be effective- including of course herbal medicine that forms the basis of modern medicine- are no longer "alternative" but become just "medicine".
    I should also point out that many alternative practitioners swear blind that they DO have evidence from clinical trials, while at the same time arguing the exact opposite, as you do, that these methods are "holistic" and therefore untouchable by evidence.
    Unfortunately, the existence of courses on something, either at Schumacher or anywhere else, also does not constitute evidence.
    What you are calling "holistic" is more properly understood as "religion"- a faith-based approach.

    Shaun- sorry, no luck with your comment, must be lost in cyberspace.

    but I dont feel you have really addressed the issue:
    you specifically go out of your way in the book to highlight "alternative" medicine as a CORE PILLAR of the transition approach to medicine. All these approaches are lumped together in the same way that they tend to lump themselves together.
    You wont get an acupuncturist claim they have evidence for the effectiveness of their therapy, while at the same time challenging, say homeopathy; alternative therapists clan together, because for them, the treatments are faith-based, promoted by clever marketing- "holistic" "natural, safe alternatives" to which we might add "helps build community resilience; medicine without oil dependency"; none of which adress the issue: do they work?
    The evidence for this is absolutely as clear as is the evidence for climate change: they do not work. If you can grapple so skillfully with the nuances of the evidence for GW, you should have no problem with evidence-based medicine.
    Interesting point you make about whether we will still have the energy for clinical trials, but for most of what you are referring to as "alternative medicine" the evidence is already there, the trials already done: are you suggesting we ignore this because in the future we may not be able to do science the way we do now?

    what do you mean by "alternative"? I think the only answer, since you make no distinctions between them, is "holistic" in the religious sense, ie. remedies that are exempt from having any supportive evidence.
    This is why I spent so long on the issue in my review- for one it seems a sloppy and even irresponsible approach to something as important as health;
    but more broadly it betrays an ideological and anti-science world view which underpins much of the environmental movement, and,it seems, the transition movement as well- which as I say is surely an example of cognitive dissonance.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  17. just another thought I had: suggesting that "alternative" therapies must work because we wont have fridges or oil for pharmaceuticals, or sufficient resources for clinical trials, is like saying "we wont have cars in the future, so therefore that is proof that flying carpets/free energy/flying pigs are real";
    or more usefully, it is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe "the oil is running out; therefore renewables will fill the gap";
    that is the majority "Green tech" view n'est pas?

    Posted 8 months ago #
  18. PS Just found your comment in my spam Shaun, thanks.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  19. Quoting Andrea:

    "if I have understood you correctly Graham, the science that you refer to could be defined as "reductionist science" i.e. the isolation of a few components within a system of interest so that we could better understand the relationship between these few components."

    Quoting Graham:

    "what do you mean by "alternative"? I think the only answer, since you make no distinctions between them, is "holistic" in the religious sense, ie. remedies that are exempt from having any supportive evidence. This is why I spent so long on the issue in my review- for one it seems a sloppy and even irresponsible approach to something as important as health; but more broadly it betrays an ideological and anti-science world view which underpins much of the environmental movement, and, it seems, the transition movement as well- which as I say is surely an example of cognitive dissonance."

    When I read debates like this, which are always interesting philosophically, I do get a little bit concerned for the Transition Movement itself. I'll get onto the reason why in a moment.

    Reductionism is an integral part of the sciences because it is often necessary to isolate certain critical components from a broader system in order to better understand what the system is doing, and examine their relationship - I'm thinking of something I do for a bit of fun - severe thunderstorm forecasting. Success in that field depends on not just identifying that the atmosphere is convectively unstable (that's the easy bit) but on looking at a series of parameters - such as wind, moisture, temperature profiles - and predicting how they will interact. It then becomes possible to determine whether there will be everyday heavy showers or on the other hand there will be the risk of a tornadic supercell. Such things don't just happen because they feel like it!

    On a much more complex scale, the science of climatology likewise involves examining in minute detail the relationships between a series of parameters - you have starting points and subsequent positive/negative feedbacks to consider in order to attempt to predict the outcome. Hence, as a consequence, we actually understand climate change to the extent that we can confidently say we need to reduce GHG emissions and at the same time prepare for the predicted climate trends that are expected to develop in our various corners of the world.

    Climate change deniers - you only need to read the comments that typically follow e.g. Monbiot's blog on the Guardian website - certainly display, as Graham describes, an "ideological and anti-science world view". Often violently so.

    So don't knock reductionist science, fellow Transitioneers! It has brought to you, if you wish to learn about it properly, the understanding of climate change, one of the key foundations upon which the Movement was originally founded. Likewise it has brought, through geology, the realisation that oil is not something that keeps magically replenishing itself over human timescales: indeed, without such science we would not have a clue that Peak Oil was coming until it actually happened. Instead we've known all about it for over half a century, and we have a chance to prepare for post-peak life.

    Spiritually, I think we all share a deep-seated feeling that what we have been doing to the planet is fundamentally wrong, and that we are reaping the consequences of that. We have varying but broadly similar views of the sort of world we wish to live in. But, and this is important, there still exists, outside of us, an enormous majority of people who are variously uneducated, confused or plain prejudiced regarding climate change and oil depletion. It is no good to wrap yourself up in a spiritual blanket and hope that they all go away, or to expect them to all spontaneously paradigm-shift overnight into a holistic way of thinking. By appearing to reject reductionism as a part of the "old ways" the Movement stands the risk of setting itself apart from the majority when it should be hell-bent on engaging positively with the unaware. The key is maybe in the word "Transition". Transition isn't about overnight revolution, switching instantly from one way of life or belief-system to another. It's about starting with the world we have now and moving, inclusively and responsibly, into a viable future for mankind and the biosphere that sustains us. There are certain things that it would seem pleasurable to leave behind - hedonistic consumerism, for example. Many others will occur to you. But we will still need good science, uncluttered by belief-systems. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water, that's my advice!

    Cheers - John

    Posted 8 months ago #
  20. Andrea Berardi
    Member

    Hi John,
    I absolutely agree with you with regards to the fundamental importance of reductionist science. Once again, I would like to emphasise that it is not a question of either/or, but in both using reductionist and holistic means to address problems.

    This is a brief extract from one of my books which might help since it uses a slightly different form (and hopefully, more acceptable) of words:

    "There are two key approaches which guide the way we think and understand what surrounds us: analysis and synthesis.

    Analysis focuses on the component parts of a situation, at heart the recognition of the differences between things. The process of analysis is the process of taking something apart and recognising the differences between the parts, and determining what the thing's parts are and do. Finally, the parts are reconstituted so as to understand the whole. It is often assumed in this process that the whole will be the same as the sum of its parts. That is, the properties of the whole can be determined by the properties of the parts. Analytical thinking has been immensely useful in resolving a wide range of problems that have clear causes. For example, most of the advances in health have been as a result of identifying simple causes of many diseases: viral and bacterial vectors; nutrient deficiencies; genetic mutations; and so on.

    Analytical thinking has gained momentum since the Enlightenment, when there was a shift against mysticism, superstition, tradition, and revelation as the main ways of thinking about the world and what we do in it. The period within which this shift in thinking took place, the late 17th and early 18th century, was also called the ‘Age of Reason’. This age promoted the use of logic and rationality, with Newtonian physics at the forefront of the revolution. People who favour analytical thinking promote the idea that most things can be ‘reduced’ to an atomistic interpretation, ultimately implying that the basic common denominator of analysis, physics, will be able to explain how everything and anything works. It is not surprising that it is physicists who coined the term ‘Theory of Everything’: the quest to find a single model to explain all fundamental interactions of nature.

    But a singular emphasis on analytical thinking can also create more problems than it solves. A famous example illustrating the unintended consequences of just focusing on analytical thinking is the story of how pollution from coal burning has been dealt with. In the late 19th century, the burning of coal within industrial centres created significant air pollution in the immediate vicinity of the industry. The analytical solution to that problem was to build higher smoke stacks so that the smoke would fly over the populated industrial areas. This is surprising, since a Scottish chemist, Robert Angus Smith, had already identified the link between coal smoke and rain acidification back in 1852. Yet the engineers proposing higher smoke stacks were only concerned with resolving the problems of local smog, which higher smoke stacks duly solved. Soon though, significant areas of forest and water bodies downwind of these industrial areas began dying. Investigating scientists, still focusing on resolving the immediate problem, discovered that the high sulphur concentrations of coal smoke was acidifying rainfall over these downwind regions. The solution to the new problem, acid rain, was to install scrubbers within the smoke stacks which would remove the sulphur particles. Unfortunately, the sulphur particles in the atmosphere also act as water vapour condensers, thus promoting the formation of extensive cloud cover. This cloud cover helps to reflect solar radiation back into space, thus mitigating the effects of climate change. Another solution currently being promoted, yet again based on analytical thinking, is to spike jet fuel with sulphur. Some people are wondering what new problems this will bring.

    A great example of an area where analytical thinking fails, is in understanding human emotions. The following quote from Jamshid Gharajedaghi's book (Gharajedaghi, 2006) on systems thinking illustrates the problem beautifully:

    I can love, but none of my parts can love. If you take me apart, the phenomenon of love will be lost.

    Indeed it often seems the case that with too much emphasis on analytical thinking, ‘facts’ are in, while ‘emotions’ are out!

    Synthesis (holistic thinking), on the other hand, involves building a whole from disparate parts; a whole which at first maybe completely unclear, because sometimes this whole has properties that cannot be explained by looking at the parts. In order to synthesise different things we need to determine what similarities there are in two or more different situations, for example, consider living organisms. How can you distinguish something that is living from something that is inanimate?

    There is no single mechanism that determines what is living and what isn't. We cannot explain life by ‘pulling it apart’ and then reconstituting it. Yet, we seem to be able to readily distinguish living things from non-living things. Synthesis is therefore about understanding ongoing processes that create recognisable patterns of behaviour. If I encounter different situations that produce a common pattern, I can then label this common pattern, and I can use this label again, and again. Coping with or surviving in new situations, situations we have not met before, depends upon our ability to synthesise. We can do this quickly and efficiently if we recognise commonalities with previous situations. This kind of synthesis clearly aids and speeds the learning process, and is a powerful tool in surviving in a changing world.

    Many ‘wholes’ can only be understood by identifying their role or function in a 'larger whole' (the context or environment) that contains them. My labelling an oak tree and a blackbird as ‘living’ is the realisation that there is a pattern of ‘living’ behaviour in each of the two different entities, within the ‘larger whole’ of the ecological system, or ecosystem, within which they are both embedded. Synthesis, therefore, may very well involve identifying the whole that you wish to focus your investigation on, understanding the role or function of this whole within its context/environment ('the larger whole'), and then defining this whole according to the relationship with its context/environment.

    The same thing can be looked at through analysis and synthesis. Take for example a lion. Analytical thinking would assume that a lion in the zoo is the same as a lion in the wild because they are exactly the same type of animal. But, holistic thinking reveals that the lion’s role as part of savanna ecology is very different from the lion’s role as part of a zoo. Studying the lion in its ‘larger whole’ – i.e. in the zoo – would tell you little about lions in the wild. Analysis tells you lions in the zoo and lions in the wild could be biologically identical, but synthesis would tell you that the animal in the zoo is not the same as the animal in its natural habitat. The two approaches can lead to two different conclusions. For example, as the study of the behaviour of animals has focused more on their actions within their natural habitats, we have been steadily revising upwards our understanding of animal intelligence."

    when I state in the final paragraph that "the two approaches can lead to two different conclusions", I do not make a judgement on one being better than the other. Once again, I believe that any problem requires both a reductionist and the holistic approach. Not either/or...... but both.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  21. I wasn't going to get into mudslinging and agree fully that good science is, well, good [actually just mistyped that as "is god", ironically!]. Andrea has clarified my point on clincial trials vs holistic care nicely, and really that's the crux of my point - there are too many variables in holistic medicine for a clincial trial to work, and using clinical trials to try and prove that any given system works in situations where it would never be applied in real life is bad science.

    Agreeing to disagree...

    JDE

    Posted 8 months ago #
  22. Andrea; what a load of New Age Balloney. You and JDE need someone like John Mason to sit down with you and explain the scientific method is and how it works. (John you are a breath of fresh air! And what a fascinating hobby!)
    My guess is you know nothing about it. You have probably never read a scientific paper, nor would you have a clue how to assess different methodologies.
    No matter, you are quite happy to arrogantly pontificate about what constitutes "bad science".
    In order to investigate a given phenomenon, you must first have a hypothesis.
    Your lengthy waffle, apart from shredding zero light on the topic we are discussing- (wild lions and captive lions... what are you, like 10 years old?!) conveniently skirts around this fundamental point.
    Let's be clear: intuition may be the best on deciding who next to date, but when you are dealing with causal relationships (Hypothesis: Lions behavior changes in captivity") like does this therapy help with this condition, science is your only man (or woman).
    Science will not, however, be able to investigate something for which there is no hypothesis, so a tactic frequently used by the New Age and throughout pseudoscience is to be evasive about the hypothesis, or keep changing it- which is why rationalists often say they feel like they are debating with blancmange.
    So the hypothesis we are discussing here would be something like, "homeopathy cures a (specific named) disease".
    Now, that is something that can definitively be investigated using clinical trials- it is basically the routine daily nuts and bolts of scientific work.
    If you dont have a hypothesis, you are talking about nothing at all.
    Both you and JDE are just repeating the tired old New Age Myth that you know something does something, but you cant say what it is this something does because it is "holistic" ie meaningless.
    There are parallels in discussions on the existence of God- no meaningful discussion can take place until you have a hypothesis about what god is.
    So it is with alternative therapies. In effect, we all agree: there is no evidence that they work- you say, because it is not possible to collect such evidence!
    So how do you know they "work"- especially when you have no clear hypothesis about what "working" would actually mean.
    A real problem here is that you have no means whatsoever with your approach to discern between genuine therapies and quackery.
    I could invent a new therapy in the morning and start selling it pretty much with impunity; it could be entirely made up but I wouldnt need evidence, just marketing skills- and it is pretty clear that words like "safe, natural, holistic, with no nasty side-effects" is a very effective way of marketing a health product, accompanied with appropriate photos of healthy young mothers and their babies.

    The idea that "reductionist" and "holistic" approaches can work together is meaningless. You are saying that evidence based approaches can go alongside things that are just made up, ie things for which there is no evidence.
    Obviously they can't work together- the evidence is clear that alternative therapies are ineffective, yet you still claim they are! How do suppose this can be reconciled?

    Try this: "Yes, reductionist science is useful in telling us about climate change,but there is a holistic approach- which cannot be verified for love nor money-that tells us that everything's grand really. Isnt it great these two approaches can work together so well!"
    But as I said before, many (most?) alternative therapists claim there is indeed "scientific" evidence for the effectiveness of their treatments.
    just one example:
    http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/
    Note the gushing reports in the article: "The skeptics said they wanted evidence- well here it is!!" Note also the photos of people in lab coats and microscopes- they are literally stealing the clothes of reductionist science, which alternative therapists would so love to have the credibility from, backed by usually unpublished, unverified "studies".
    Now, Id love to see you take these fraudsters on and tell them that no such study is credible because homeopathy is "holistic" and cannot be touched with such "reductionist" approaches.
    I'm sure I'll be vilified from all sides on account of my tone, but i think it is time to get angry about these very important issues- we are talking about people's health remember. Giving bad advice -often as part of a professional service- about dubious therapies with no evidence is a very bad thing to do.
    In surveys in the BMJ in 2002 (Schmidt,Ernst, Andrews)found more than 50% of homeopaths advised against MMR vaccines.
    As a result of this deluded and irresponsible way of thinking that you are proposing, the UK is now experiencing the worst measles epidemic since the vaccine was introduced.
    Doesnt anyone care about this?

    Here is what I would like to see:
    -all transition groups are required to include a sub group courses on Critical Thinking and proper instruction in the scientific method and how science works in practice.
    -the new edition Transition Timeline replaces "alternative therapies" as being a core pillar with "evidence based medicine" as being a core pillar;
    -that the Transition movement makes explicit that it is a secular movement, and does not promote either new Age nor any other religion.

    There is not a cat's hope in hell of this happening, so I humbly excuse myself from further debate on this forum.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  23. Hi Andrea,

    Your "case examples" above are interesting but, and I'll take the coal-burning one as my one to expand upon, they illustrate something else apart from pure science. I'll explain why.

    Now, the industrialist of the 19th Century, with his steam-driven machinery, would see the economic benefit of having his workforce living in proximity to the place of labour: therefore, it would follow that towns expanded around centres of industry, in which pollution consequent on the burning of coal was likewise an expanding thing. The health of workers and their families increasingly suffers and the powers-that-be identify the need that Something Must Be Done.

    Now, you go on to say:

    "The analytical solution to that problem was to build higher smoke stacks so that the smoke would fly over the populated industrial areas. This is surprising, since a Scottish chemist, Robert Angus Smith, had already identified the link between coal smoke and rain acidification back in 1852. Yet the engineers proposing higher smoke stacks were only concerned with resolving the problems of local smog, which higher smoke stacks duly solved."

    That is not a purely reductionist scientific approach. The latter would call for ways of effectively capturing/isolating what are clearly well-identified and noxious products of combustion and if that were not possible with the technology available, to recommend instead that such pollutant sources of energy be discontinued on health/environmental grounds. No wonder scientists can be unpopular!

    However - and this is the important bit - the engineer, in the employ of the industrialists, has not been offered a fee to bring about that conclusion. Instead, it would have been more like "if we pay you enough, can you find a way of dealing with this pollution in the immediate vicinity? We have to continue using this form of energy at all costs because it is the most economical." To which the engineer would, needing the money, immediately set about making said pollution somebody else's problem.

    That then, in time, not being enough, and the industrialists getting concerned about being sued by the agriculture and forestry people downwind, they do set about developing the capture technology they should have tried all along. No doubt, hopes run high that the captured sulphur may be worth something! If not, they can always bury it somewhere and hope that nobody notices...

    That is not reductionist science: instead it is a bit of science, mixed in with the usual economic priorities. if you look at government approaches to climate chage, you see similar things. I think it's important not to get reductionist science mixed up with Business As Usual - the primary drivers are totally different!

    Your final point on that example:

    "Unfortunately, the sulphur particles in the atmosphere also act as water vapour condensers, thus promoting the formation of extensive cloud cover. This cloud cover helps to reflect solar radiation back into space, thus mitigating the effects of climate change."

    Now, I would say that the sulphur aerosols STILL need to be taken out of the equation, and likewise the GHGs such as CO2. Reductionist science tells me this at a glance. These bits of the system both have properties that make them bad in excess. You don't want extra clouds to up the local planetary albedo if they are going to carry on dropping acidified rainfall 50 miles downwind! That's still the sphere of a bit of science/lots of economics/somebody else's problem.

    Instead, capture all noxious products effectively, and only then are you starting to get close to a clean way of using the energy contained in an impure fossil fuel like coal. At that turning point, it becomes a reasonable source of energy. Unfortunately for the poor industrialist, he has to live with the fact that the EROEI value isn't quite as lucrative as it was, which in turn hits his pocket. Never mind. He can go off for a few drinks to his Golf Club and have a rant about "bloody environmentalists"!

    Cheers - John

    Posted 8 months ago #
  24. First, thanks Shaun (and Rob) for your efforts in putting together Transition Timeline.

    To pick up on an earlier part of the thread, I think the role of energy literacy - which is mostly only about Junior cert maths ('O' Level equivalent) when it comes down to it - cannot be over stated when formulating energy descent or energy transition action plans. Its hard to have a reduction strategy without some idea of the ultimate destination. I'd like to share some of the work that has been done in Ireland in this area, namely the Mayo Energy Audit. This was a very detailed assessment of energy use and renewable energy resource-potential in Co. Mayo.

    In recent dialogue with me, however,Roger Adair of the North West Group, commented that the Mayo Audit contained no definitive statement on future energy use. This is true. Co-author Paul Lynch and I simply assessed what was available and left the reader to make her or his own conclusions. In his short review of the Audit, Roger does exactly that and surmises that renewable resources, even if developed in an optimal way, will only provide the equivalent of a small fraction of current energy usage.
    (See http://transitiontownsireland.ning.com/forum/topics/mayo-energy-audit-review)

    Given there appears to be a need for greater clarity, I have made a short summary of the findings of the Mayo Audit below. If we take Final Energy Consumption, the figures are as follows (proportion of current Final Energy Consumption ultimately provided from indigenous resources):
    2020: 16%
    2030: 28%
    2040: 35%

    I have used the word ‘indigenous’ as there was some turf (local hand or machine-cut peat) included in the Mayo calculations. However, this is a diminishing resource, and the extraction of the raw material carries a high environmental footprint.

    The Mayo figures were quite optimistic, as they assumed the necessary steps to plant thousands of acres of sub-tillage-quality land in broadleaves (for biomass) would begin almost immediately. However, we also assumed relatively low yields of biomass per ha - perhaps in well organised agro-forestry systems higher outputs would be achievable. There was also some surplus electricity (not included in the figures above), which could be exported to regions of Ireland less endowed with electricity generation capability.

    Is Mayo representative of Ireland? Not really. Its population density of 22 persons per km2 is only slightly over one third of the national average (59 persons/km2). Conversely, it has good renewable resources compared to many parts of Ireland. Current per capita energy use is slightly above the national average owing to high transport requirements.

    The inescapable conclusion is that the Final Energy Consumption percentages given above should probably be divided by three when applied to Ireland as a whole. This gives:

    2020: 5-6%
    2030: 9-10%
    2040: 11-12%

    Remember, these are best case scenario figures, and assumes massive country-wide mobilisation, beginning immediately.

    To put the energy figures in context, if Ireland relied on indigenous resources alone, the best case scenario would imply about the same per capita energy usage as India, not Cuba!!

    It is worth pointing out that Ireland’s low population density and good renewable energy resources base still puts it in a much better position than many of its European neighbours, especially Britain (with 15 times the population, 4 times the population density as Ireland and only 3 times the renewable resources)!

    The question is, how long do the high-energy consuming nations have to make the switch from fossil fuels to a renewable energy-based society that carries out its essential functions on as little as one tenth of what we use now? If we really did have till 2040, and could wean ourselves off oil and gas in a gentle gradual way, probably the transition could be made relatively smoothly. I somehow doubt the reality will be anything like that.

    It is certainly worth pondering these very difficult energy problems in more detail, hence the need for a greater energy literacy, and also perhaps some broad consensus of the scale of reductions that will occur, planned or otherwise.

    Posted 8 months ago #
  25. rogadair
    Member

    This posting seems to have morphed amazingly from the
    thrust of Bob Thorp's original and thought provoking thesis that seems a step too far
    for many on this forum.

    I am happy for my review of the Mayo Energy Audit to be posted
    to try and move the debate forward from the current rather Jesuitical level
    of theological transition debate.

    Roger Adair

    Posted 8 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.