Moreover, it proposes the institutional framework of Public-Common Partnerships as a promising model for implementing and driving transition projects with three examples coming from the authors’ organization:
@abundance-org.bsky.social
www.in-abundance.org

… it is also much more than that. The book goes deep into the challenges and potential features of transitions, as well as cases and experiments happening around the world.

Thanks for reading and sharing, Jeremy. 🙌

Thank you so much for this. I really needed it.

😥 espero que pronto se quede solo como un mal recuerdo 🙌

I’m sure there’s a productive connection between @vgr.bsky.social’s essay and Stephen Wolfram’s latest work but it’s still a bit above my paygrade.

www.ted.com/talks/stephe...

So, yes, let’s avoid falling (again) into the optimism vs. pessimism trap and face the future with a techno-pragmatic, tragicomic, scenaric stance.

5/5

An additional and compatible argument would be a call to supersede both optimism and pessimism through the “tragicomic,” “scenaric stance” (J. Ogilvy) that arguably characterizes futures thinking for at least 3/4 of a century.

4/5

The element that, for me, is most philosophically retrograde in the manifesto is the binary choice between optimism and pessimism. In his critique, Karpf calls to supersede that with techno-pragmatism.

3/5

… for a discourse so keen to appear forward-thinking it sounds incredibly anachronistic. Here Karpf traces this discourse back to the early 90s Californian ideology but it may as well be traced back a century or two.

2/5