It is said that the less we know about a story in the media the more plausible and accurate the story appears. Even the little I already know about Transition tells me that this story in the New York Times of 5 June is a travesty of Transition thinking:
“Transition US, a British transplant that seeks to help towns brace for life after oil, including a “population die-off” from shortages of oil, food and medicine, now has 68 official chapters around the country, since starting with just two in 2008. Group projects range from community vegetable gardens to creating local currency in case the national one crashes.”
While I think local currencies one of the least useful ideas to come out of Transition, I doubt even their proponents believe they have the remotest hope of supplanting a failing national one. Indeed, such currencies are more likely to become instantly worthless. Rather, they are intended to help keep trade local.
Nor have I previously seen any mention of “population die-off” but that may be due to being only half way through The Transition Handbook.
Has anyone else spotted misinterpretations of the Transition message?