There's been a lot of conflict on this board around christianity; it's generated more heat than light. Christianity actually has a lot to do with y2k, especially the worst-case scenario. Many, probably a significant majority, of those who have prepared for this are fundamentalist christians. The merits of prophecy aside, we may find an explicitly christian political state, or states, arising from the aftermath. Christianity is also very germain to discussion of the y2k problem because the media monopolies are using the image of the "fanatical, apocalyptic christian" to tar all y2k "doomsayers" with the same brush. The recent Seattle Times article (Sun July 12, 1998) is a case in point: no facts, but a lot of sly satirizing of what is falsely depicted as a prophecy-driven millenial christian movement. And Gary North (christian!)is mentioned, while Ed Yourdon, his book and web page are not (even though TB2k was amazon.com's #3 best-seller last I looked, and Seattle is amazon's home town). The same thing happened on a recent local radio talk show. I suspect that y2k preparedness will continue to be ridiculed as "christian cultism" and "millenial fever", just as concerns about the evident erosion of the constitution and the bill of rights have been quashed by characterizations of "right wing fanatics." Christians who see y2k as an opportunity to win souls for christ ought to be aware that their comments will be taken out of context; and non-christians ought to realize that christianity becomes a potent political force in this country, proportional to the level of economic/psychological stress. How stressful do you think y2k will be?

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), July 23, 1998

Answers

Y2k has become a madhouse for all wannabe cultists who were too afraid to join a religious cult. Now it comes complete with Y2Konspiracy theories for the masses. How much financial hardship is it causing in families, how many have been 'alienated' by a Y2Koncerned loved-one. Wouldn't it be better to enjoy life to the fullest now "Carpe Diem" and all and let the "grownup computer programmers" fix it as best they can? If Y2k takes up all your thoughts and time and money it's time to call in the DEPROGRAMMERS instead.

-- Human Kind (Human@madness.net), July 23, 1998.

Hey Human Kind,

Your statements show me just how much of a programmer you really are. You probably could not program yourself out of a wet paper bag.

-- beenprogramminglongerthanyou (methane@sneerdly.com), July 23, 1998.

"Human Kind's" response represents just the sort of people that our media manipulators rely on. "Conspiracy Theory?" That kind of labling is precisely the dynamic I'm trying to illuminate. I suggest that a newspaper's first action is to serve the interests of it's advertisers, not it's readership - does that make me a "conspiracy theorist?" Lately, I find any distrust in government labled this way. It's a knee jerk reaction, similar to the dysfunctional family dynamic, wherein Daddy's sexual abuse or Mommy's drinking is a "taboo" subject, and any mention of it is met with vehement denial - even by the victims. "Human Kind", and even the Seattle Times reporter, therefore, don't need to be part of a "conspiracy" (not a conscious one, anyway). Like a trusting child, they are just too heavily dependent, and therefore heavily identified with thier abusers, to do anything but squelch the truth, no matter how obvious. Preparing for the results of that dysfunction by becoming a real, independent person and taking responsibility for one's own survival can break this cycle and allow one to see what's really going on. Until you are ready to take that step, people who do step outside the dysfunctional dynamic can seem scary, or crazy. The rule in America now, as in a dysfunctional family, is (as in family therapist Alice Miller's book of the same name) "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware."

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), July 23, 1998.

A POEM:

They come with 8 hour candles lit to worship at the shrine of bags of wheat and .44's and cucumbers in brine.

One man starts the sacred chant, followed by the rest, "We must be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best".

The Master of the remnant says the dominoes will fall He will tell you what think if you share his crystal ball.

We fight against the evil that programmers have wrought With the President and bankers joining in their hidden plot.

The government and IRS will never get the fix, So grab your gold and camoflauge and head out to the sticks.

Come join us in our future land where generators hum. Come drink the sacred water from our 50 gallon drum.

Just bring your beans and TVP 'till all of this will pass And you will find that we will have no need for natural gas.

The End. (You can put me on your list now Granny Holly)

-- Human Kind (Human@madness.net), July 23, 1998.

IF Mr. Kind were a real programmer, to which I have my doubts, then he would know the answers already. 1. Most utilities will not make it in time. 2. Little if any of the distribution and logistics systems will come even close to making it. 3. The financial system will deteriorate dramatically. NO, not because of Y2K problems domestically. The Asian crisis with an over-eager push to "create" the EURO will cause the deflation that zaps the banks. Y2K will be the "excuse" for the runs at some banks. 4. The current government can not be trusted. I do not think that statement needs to be explained. If Mr. Kind does not understand, I would suggest reading the newspapers. What will be the sum total of all of this? We can only guess at this point in time. My guess, based on my dealings with numerous mainframe programmers in my state, is that we will endure about 30 to 60 days of major discomfort, including some severe hardships in some urban areas. Probably with about 2-3 years of economic activity similar to the early 1930's. Then, as we clean up the mess here, then repair the rest of the world's systems, the economy will slowly begin regrowing with an amazing, sometimes frightening (to the really paranoid) amound of technical innovation. Just hang tough through the Y2K screw up we've created. Life will be good once it's over....

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), July 23, 1998.

Just tried to e-mail human@madness.net and he gave a phony name and e-mail address. So, he truly is a human that is mad.

-- human at madness (human @madness.net), July 24, 1998.

What's wrong, folks, too much good news lately for your tastes? Let me guess, it's all a conspiracy from the blue sky crowd, right? Someone posts a get-a-life message and you flame him. That says it all, doesn't it? I am looking forward to January 2000 and message boards like this. Hopefully, I'll be able to read about your newest worries once these have passed and frauds like North and McIlvaney are exposed for what they are. What tripe.

-- Professor K (PROFESSORK@prodigy.com), July 25, 1998.

Professor K,

If you think that y2k is no big deal, then why do you spend your time reading and posting to this site? Surely there would be more interesting things you could do? Maybe a hobby or a dog would help.

-- Mary (Beachyfe@hotmail.com), July 25, 1998.

No one knows at the present what the final outcome of the computer glitch will be, except Gary North and his crowd, who have decided that the time is ripe for an historical discontinuity, wailing and the gnashing of teeth. They have their reasons for thinking this way that are not entirely determined by the subtleties of the technical problem. Is Mr. North a millennialist Christian with a grudge against this sinful world? I don't know for sure, but I suspect he is, and if he is, so what? We're all flying in the same airliner and he's striding the aisles proclaiming that we're not going to make it. His life is not easy and will not get easier. This provides plenty of stimulation to the optomists to prove the bastard wrong by fixing the problem.The probability that the outcome will be less drastic than he envisions increases each day, but many people have a compelling need to have absolute assurance about the future: y2k disaster/y2k no big deal, one or the other. This is a sure sign that the debate has detached itself from reality, for the problem is a technical, quantifiable problem, and not a matter of whether one is a millennialist or not. There are reasons to believe the problem can be solved, at least to the extent of averting general catastrophe. And I come to the point: the y2k problem is not the issue bedevilling those who contemplate 1/1/2000 with fear & loathing. Y2k is a symptom of deeper problems that are not technical in nature, problems defined by the Club of Rome back in the early 70's, overpopulation and the human assault on the natural environment, problems of weapons proliferation, problems of poor management, lack of foresight, and inability to envision the human future. Compared to any of these long-standing problems, y2k is a piece of cake. This hysteria about y2k is misplaced. Has anyone considered it is too little too late for pollution of the atmosphere, or proliferation of megadeath? Those who shouted doom on these issues have been proven wrong.....so far, just as North will be proven wrong or not quite right about y2k. But in the long run, North and others not of a Christian persuasion, are correct in their forebodings. There is more doom and gloom in this world to consider than mere y2k, Horatio.

-- Joseph Danison (JDanison@aol.com), July 25, 1998.

A couple of assorted thoughts.... 1. To Mary....I think there will be glitches, inconveniences, and problems. I am most concerned about the inter-connectedness of computers on a global scale and given the fact that many countries are turning a deaf ear to the warnings, only a fool would be un-concerned. Why am I here, you ask? The reason is simple: there are a lot of informed people who are working with the problem that I enjoy reading. At the same time, there are a lot of gloom and doomers who are ready for the worst. While I am sure that they are the majority and ignore my postings, they are so prolific that they cannot possibly be ignored. Their 'could' and 'might' scenarios smack of emotion over intellect. They have little for fact and scoff at people who work in the field.

2. To Joseph....thank you for your posting. Next to Anti-Fools, I thought I was the only optimist aboard. gary North has a long history of being a doomsayer...and years ago, it didn't involve y2k. Apparently, he has found an audience via the internet. I am a Christian who chooses to live by my faith rather than by false prophets.

-- Professor K (PROFESSORK@prodigy.com), July 26, 1998.

Prof K, I'm not an optomist. But I don't think y2k is the end of the world as we know it problem that Gary North thinks it is. North is a "Calvinist" and a "Christian Reconstructionist", so I'm told, whatever that is. His view is inspired by something other than facts & cool assessment and he's got an agenda other than simple public service. I'm beginning to believe that many others in this forum who see y2k as an eschatalogical issue have fallen under the spell of North's polemic, or have simply lost perspective and projected on this issue a load of anxiety deriving from other, unacknowledged sources. y2k is a symptom, not a cause, of the truly intractable problems we face. Hysteria over nuclear war was widespread when nuclear bombs were new. Hysteria over environmental degradation and overpopulation developed when these problems were first defined and considered. And now there is some hysteria ( North as chief spokesman) over the fact that our lives are dependent on computers. We didn't really *know* that before. We don't really know what it means to live in a world controlled by computers. We are learning. We have discovered a new reason to feel insecure, and it is natural that people overreact. It is also reasonable to expect that y2k will be fixed to avoid the catastrophe North hopes for because y2k is a technical problem and Americans are pretty good at technical stuff. I'm not implying there won't be difficulties. Americans aren't good at solving other kinds of problems, though, and it is overpopulation & environmental degradation that will sink this Titanic. We will likely see others use nuclear weapons, as we have done, as well. The state of the world is extremely precarious and people know this in their bones. y2k becomes a kind of scapegoat because it is easy to understand, whereas the truly unremediable problems are not. I am not an optomist, and ironically, I believe North's doom & gloom is justified for reasons other than y2k. I'm not a Christian, either.

-- Joseph Danison (JDanison@aol.com), July 27, 1998.

Joseph Danison - I am a Christian but I'm not necessarily here for eschatalogical reasons. By the way, you correct about Gary North. He is a reconstructionist. Few Christians hold that view. Briefly, they maintain that the world will eventually be a Christian world and when we acheive that state, Jesus Christ will return and reign on this earth before taking all home to heaven. Yet while I'm not necessarily here for eschatalogical reasons, it is quite plausible that this could be the coming to power of the anitchirist/one world gov't. (Don't laugh too hard unless you know the Bible, know it quite well, and know the significance of typology in the Bible). I'm not very sure. I just know that Y2K represents a potential threat to my family and I'm trying to decide what steps to take. I called our mayor's office and spoke to him. I asked him if he had determined that the three utility suppliers (water, gas, electric) could verify that they were y2k compliant. He thanked me and said he would check into it. He called me, 30 days later. He said none of them would provide an answer, written or verbal. If it's not a problem, then why not? Certainly, I know an affirmative answer followed fy a failure to lead to liability incurred on part of the utility, but there is a concern. And I think that many people aren't concerned about it because they don't relaize the significance that computers play in our everyday life. Friends, there are a lot of Christians like myself who passionately believe the Bible yet who are "sitting on the fence", not really sure what to make of this y2k thing. Don't pass it all off as Christian eschatalogical hysteria.

-- MikeB (mbronson@nemonet.com), July 27, 1998.

Mike B,

my point is that y2k has become a kind of scapegoat for the generalized anxiety about the future that is pervasive among thoughtful people. it is a problem that is more easilly fixed that the problem of environmental degradation, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons, for example. It is a quantifiable technical problem and Americans can certainly deal with it. We will be inconvenienced, no doubt, and the failure of other countries to rise to the challenge will likely produce a global economic slowdown, but it is not reasonable to assert that we will fall off a cliff into a dark age come 1/1/2000, as Gary North imagines. If we do, it will be as a result of other problems that are more insidious and unpredictable than y2k, problems that we have never resolved and likely never will resolve, problems that will provoke the end of Our Way of Life, as George Bush called it during the Gulf War. OWOL will survive y2k because Americans are very good at technical stuff and because of people like you and me and Gary North, who are trying to sound the alarm to the rest of society. OWOL will not survive the continued degradation of the environment that is the result of overpopulation. It is fascinating to read North because he has developed a way of understanding the SYSTEM, the infrastructure of OWOL, by means of a computer glitch. Thanks to North many people who never thought about the System that is OWOL now can see it more clearly, and in seeing it for the first time, they realize how fragile it is and get frightened. But these same people do not also appreciate the natural System upon which OWOL depends, because this system of nature is vastly more complex than the relatively easy to understand web of interrelationships in OWOL. Looking at the world through the keyhole of y2k distorts the reality of our situation. Our world is in a state of crisis and has been for some time without y2k. Y2k gets the attention because we can do something about it. It's what we don't know that will hurt us and problems we can't solve that create all this anxiety about OWOL.

-- Joseph Danison (JDanison@aol.com), July 28, 1998.

I strongly believe Gary North deserves credit for providing a free website with lot's of useful articles. I've been using his site as a source of data since early 1997. I agree that North's summaries are quite negative and depressing. So just click on the original article and read it -- stop complaining about North -- he's entitled to his opinion because it's his website!

I'm very confident Y2K will disrupt our economy. The disruption will last for days, weeks, months or years. Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is several months of disruptions starting late 1999. But then I'm not a Y2K expert -- there is not one Y2K expert on this Earth -- not one person who has led or even participated on a Y2K team that has completed work at a large organization (30+ million lines of code). (Buying all-new software doesn't count because we're running out of time for the "buy new stuff" Y2K solution.)

You can criticize Gary North because he's been negative (and wrong) on other economic subjects in the past. But don't be so fast to criticize his negative Y2K views because nobody knows how much Y2K will hurt our economy. Nobody knows how many embedded systems there are and nobody knows what percentage of them will have Y2K problems. I believe a large majority of embedded systems in the world will not be checked before January 2000. Not checked means not fixed. Will 0.1% have Y2K problems, or 1% or 10%? Your guess is as good as mine ... and my conservative guess is 1%. Now you tell me how many embedded systems there are and multiply by 0.01. I've seen widely varying estimates of how many chips were manufactured and what percentage of those were used in non-computer equipment. Without good data, I'll have to wait until January 2000 to see how many embedded systems problems we'll have. That means I'll have to wait until January 2000 to know how serious Y2K will be. I can assure you I'll be nervous in late 1999 with so many unknowns. It's possible the fear of Y2K will be worse than Y2K computer/embedded system software disruptions. Your guess is as good as mine and I've been studying and writing articles on Y2K since eary 1997!

-- Richard Greene (Rgreene2@ford.com), July 29, 1998.

I'm a christian too! But I noticed that no one has mentioned the Euro dollar, the new world Order, on the " smart Card" Wouldn't you think that after trauma like Y2K, it would be a great time to introduce it? When people have no money, no home and no medical and are VULNERABLE. I heard a radio show that said if you take the smart card you'll be prone to make the exception to take the mark. What will the use to make us take it. Another Y2K? Something else?

SOO

-- soo (me@you.net), August 02, 1998.

The situation that gives the NWO the chance for ultimate power is the very same situation that decays their power to implement it. People in the past have run for "mommy" to save them when things get tough to handle, I suspect that this time will be no different. FDR would not have been able to create the welfare state without the consent of the "un-washed masses". How much freedom do you think that the current generation will be willing to trade-off for assurances that every thing will be taken care of? I suspect much, but only time will tell how much consolidated power can be retained in a rapidly de-centralizing world.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 02, 1998.

The Millennium Bug is a waste of time.

-- Jasmin Hadley (Min@weldon.freeserve.co.uk), January 13, 2000.