Many hundreds of man-hours are being invested in preparation for a hypothetical situation that is extremely unlikely to occur any time in the forseeable future. Why are so many people being 'focused' on a hypothetical scenario when there are other, more tangible threats to our Communities? The ethos of Transition Town is internally focused, yet global legislation is currently being drawn up, which will potentially 'flush away' the local initiatives that TT is driving forward.
Is there more to 'Transition Town' than is currently being disclosed ... or is it simply a case of well-meaning ecologists dreaming of sustainable community while being oblivious to the geo-political realities. Only time ... and a greater regard for intellectual transparency ... will tell.
In 2005, I attended a presentation by Naresh Giangrande on 'Peak Oil'. The presentation incorporated the standard Campbell/Simmons/Ruppert hypothesis on 'Peak Oil' but was presented as FACT. During the Q&A session, it became apparent that Naresh possessed limited oilfield knowledge. At the end of the evening, I approached Naresh and suggested that perhaps the issue of 'Peak Oil' should be opened up for debate. He declined the invitation. Subsequent suggestion, to both Naresh Giangrande & Rob Hopkins, that the issue be debated publicly were rejected.
Over the next two years Transition Town trotted out a series of 'Peak Oil' protagonists (not an oil industry representative amongst them), to promote the eschatological scenario of a world without oil.
Eventually, Changing Times, a Lewes based organisation who focus on providing a vehicle for questioning received wisdom, arranged the debate that Transition Town Totnes had successfully avoided for the previous two years.
In the aftermath of the Lewes debate, I tried once again, to encourage the Transition Town founder, Rob Hopkins, to participate in a similar event, so that the population of Totnes may have the opportunity to hear an alternative view on the issue of 'Peak Oil'.
The following Email was sent to Rob Hopkins (cc: Naresh Giangrande) on Friday 14th September 2007.
Hi Rob,
I believe it is now more than two years since I first broached the proposal of a public debate with either yourself (or Naresh) on the subject of Peak Oil. Although the basic premise of TT philosophy is based upon “an understanding of Peak Oil and Climate Change as twin drivers …”, you have (perhaps understandably) been reluctant to acknowledge the validity of counter proposition. However, I am sure that you will be aware of my participation in the recent Peak Oil debate, hosted by Changing Times, in Lewes, Sussex, on Tuesday September 4th.
Mike Grenville, representing the Transition Town Community, made some very interesting comments and observations during the course of the evening but it was very apparent that some of the information which I presented was new (by his own admission) to at least one of the three TT members who had come along in support of Mike. It was interesting, if rather surprising, to learn that, according to the event organisers, both Mike Grenville and the Lewes TT community had elected not to promote awareness of this debate, either on their respective websites or via their respective mailing lists. If this is the case, it is really quite startling and raises the question as to whether those who actively seek to promote the hypothesis of Peak Oil are wary of their hypotheses being placed under scrutiny!
As Lewes is but a satellite of the Totnes initiative, it would seem most pertinent to continue this debate in Totnes. Consequently, I propose to hold a similar event in Totnes on the evening of Friday 18th October at St. John’s Church, Bridgetown. As prime movers in the TT movement, I would like to invite either yourself or Naresh to present the case for Peak Oil; I would then present the counter view.
If either of you are unable to participate in this event, perhaps you would like to recommend an alternative Peak Oil or TT campaigner to present the case for Peak Oil.
Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you would like to discuss the proposition further.
Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing from you.
The exchange of Emails which followed this invitation ... speak volumes!
2 comments:
Surely birth control would be the logical answer to limiting the global population.
I respect the work and opinions of Ian R Crane and have seen a couple of his live presentations, watched all tjhe dvds and read a few recommended books, but i do think the human population is dangerously high and i'm therefore convinced that the population MUST be reduced.
However, it needs to be done through reasoned persuasion rather than force, because no one should have the right to assume the authority to initiate any quick fix ways of reducing it.
Everywhere i look the devastating effects of human population and environmental pollution stand out. An increasing population is so obviously unsustainable.
Ian is right that some green fascists are choosing to go the wrong way about it.
I think that the ball is already rolling for population reduction through the pharmaceutical industry and i'm quite convinced that advanced and genetically modified viral strains are being used, not only to make us ill in an effort to increase profits, but also as a method of control as viruses can be targeted to alter physiology by attacking specific areas of the brain.
In my younger years i remember that cold like viruses were a rare occurence in the summer time yet now they occur all year round. I think this is by design rather than by accident. It would take very few scientists to develop a new cold virus and infection of a handful of people could see it spread the world in months. At the very least this would net drug companies a huge profit with higher uptake of their inneffective remedies.
I also believe that vaccines can and probably are already being used to create illness and reduce population.
I have first hand experience of this as my baby son, 15 years ago, died three days after a Diptheria, Polio and Tetanus (DPT) vaccine. It wasn't until last year when i read "Adverse Effects Of Adjuvants In Vaccines" by Viera Scheibner PhD, that i realised that vaccine adjuvants can cause serious and lasting illness and sometimes death.
The official cause of my son's death was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Fifteen years down the line, i couldn't remember the specific date of vaccination and so wrote to his former doctor to confirm it. His doctor said that the practice records had been deleted but that ALL vaccination records were stored at the local hospital. I applied to see these records and they stated that thje last DPT (they come in three stages) vaccine was given over a month before his death. I was confused and thought that maybe time had clouded my perception of events, but then last month i found his red book (a record of all babies medical events) and this confirms that he was vaccinated three days prior to his death.
My suspicion has been aroused that this record, conveniently for the health authority, has been lost, deleted or never entered. As yet i've received no proper explanation as to why it might be missing from their records.
I do believe that there is certainly the potential to add substances to vaccines that could perhaps destroy those considered to have undesirable genetic codes. What a convenient and easy way to covertly reduce human population. The true horror of this possibility hits home when your own flesh and blood are on the receiving end.
Post a Comment