I digress.... Back to our somewhat smaller (but very well attended) event: Alastair's presentation spawned controversy (see Rob's response at http://transitionculture.org/2010/03/04/genuine-resilience-results-from-expanding-the-human-footprint-discuss/) when he suggested that sustainable development somehow was an artificial constraint upon human (and specifically) architectural development. Although the criticism was not aimed specifically at Transition Towns (and the debate was good humoured) Alastair's assertion that "genuine resilience results from an expanding human footprint" met with the Rob's ire. I think most of us would scratch our head with disbelief that anyone could imagine the exponential expansion of resource usage can be sustained on a finite planet. It beggars believe but is the reflection of the same sort of logic that drove Ian Plimer in "Heaven & Earth" (ISBN 978-07043-7166-8 Quartet Books 2009) when he stated that mankind's existence was personified by our triumph over nature. For Plimer nature is darn-right nasty and out to 'get us'. He believed it is our right to overcome nature and tame it if we are to remain alive & free on this planet. This view comes from a very different view of life. One as mankind as victim rather than nature.

I recall a vaguely charming Tweet from Rob several months ago when he said he was off to the cinema to see "Star Trek"(2009 Paramount Pictures). Having subsequently seen this movie myself I can't help but think that the future vision created by Gene Roddenberry (or let's say reinterpreted by J.J. Abrams) is at the meeting point of Rob and Alastair's views. What is missing is time and technology. If we live long enough to develop a technology that gives us access to unlimited clean and renewable energy then much of our problems disappear IF we also undergo a cultural transition. If we know how to change matter into energy then back to matter again we can create whatever we need to create and leave mother nature well alone. The future vision of Star Trek has often shown astounding technology alongside people's and culture leading a simple "transitiony" existence. These future people have learnt harsh lessons so have rejected wars and urban sprawl in favour of a more sustainable relationship with the planets they live on. Urban nightmares are only found on "backward" planets with people who have not transitioned. The way WE live today would simply be viewed as barbaric to these imaginary future cultures. Transition is a cultural curtailment where people find a happier place with less stuff. It doesn't mean they live in mud huts, leading a miserable short life and chewing berries to survive in the woods. In such a future world the architects can build whatever fantastic city-scape they can imagine. But would anyone want to live in them? Your freedom is only defined by what people want, it is only confined by what people need.

So go on, build your gas guzzling unsustainable buildings and feel 'free'. But they will become the definition of failure when people evolve to find what true freedom really means. As one member of the audience pointed out in the ensuing debate at EcoBuild: where is the freedom in nuclear energy when the uranium is ripped from the soil of Tibet and those who exploit it ride roughshod of over the freedoms of the indigenous peoples who live there? With every freedom come a responsibility. Out of sight is not out of mind. Once we realise the costs of our perceived freedoms then then are no longer classified as freedoms. They become the bars that hold us back.