Why are the cities considered unsafe?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Hi:

I live in the metropolitan DC area, and thought very seriously about 'heading for the hills' several months in advance of y2k, but my question is this: Why is the common understanding that the cities will be the most dangerous place to be come y2k? Is it solely the looting and social unrest factor? Because it seems to me that the cities would be the first place where systems would come back online... it seems like in the event of a major power failure, the electricity will come back on in NY or DC before it does in rural south dakota... is this horribly naive?

Mary.

-- Mary Chen (maryc@magnet.com), August 03, 1998

Answers

No, I don't think that's naive at all, Mary. The belief that the cities will be more dangerous than the country has been the subject of debate on several forums.

Those who believe the cites will be dangerous cite social unrest as a result of power outages, possible disruption in food supplies, and breakdown in the social payment infrastructure, especially welfare. They also cite the fact that riots occur in cities (because there are people in cities, of course......no one's heard of a riot in an empty corn field) such as LA following the Rodney King thing, and in NYC following a power outage. If someone's angry, the chances are that they live in a city. Anger breeds anger.

I'd add this. I live in the country. My neighbors routinely can and preserve food. Because we often get snowed in during the winter it's not uncommon to have a well stocked larder. One of my sons and his wife live up your way -- a DC suburb.

We we talking about this a month ago, and we noted that in the city it's not uncommon for people not to have more than a couple of days food in the house. Example: when he comes here for a weekend we get the bagels out of the freezer. We I go up there, we make a Sundmay morning trip to the local bagel shop.

So, while you have the opportunity for social unrest, by and large the population simply is not prepared to live more than a day without.......whatever it is that fails.

-- Rocky Knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), August 03, 1998.


well, DC is not the place that i would want to be , i am north of you by about 50 miles , and i know i am to close ,think about a safe spot to hide till its over , learn to live with out power.

-- Ron (mongo@earthling.net), August 03, 1998.

Mary,

I'm also in the DC Metro area but thankfully not downtown. I simply can't afford to bug out, so I'm preparing to stay. I figure this means doing without electric heat and light for several weeks, maybe months. People in my neighborhood grumble when a thunderstorm knocks out power for a few hours - imagine how tempers will flare after several days or a week?

Rocky was correct when he said people in the city kept very little food on-hand. I know I didn't have much more than a day or two available until I started reading up on possible Y2K problems. Now I've stocked up on dried and canned goods that will store ok for quite a while. Costco rules!

-- Melinda Gierisch (gieriscm@hotmail.com), August 03, 1998.


I think the common theme here is this: The cities are more likely to feel any serious effects of Y2K because they are, pretty much by definition, more dependent on the basic infrastructure of modern society. For example, few in the major cities expect power outages but in more rurual areas occasional power outages are accepted as part of life. I live only 35 miles from Boston (and only 10 miles from Lowell, the third largest city in Massachusetts), but even that close to a major city I fully expect to suffer two or three power outages a year. So far, in eight years of living out here, my expectations have been met every year.

Other posters are right when they say that people in the urban areas are, on the whole, less prepared for disaster than ther rural brethren. Moreover, the large urban areas have a history of violent social unrest when things go bad.

However, there is another underlying assumption in worrying about the reaction of the urban populace during times of wide-scale emergency: Y2K is going to cause a wide-scale emergency. Some believe that, some do not. Read, listen and decide for yourself what may or may not happen, then act accordingly.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 03, 1998.


Cities are vulnerable because of their impersonal nature. If things go wrong and people get upset they take it out on businesses owned by people they don't know, or God forbid, a corporation. They steal food from people they don't know, they turn over cars owned by people they've never met. They don't pull together, they blow apart.

People in the city live anonymous lives for the most part. They live 20 miles from where they work and have no interaction with their neighbors.

Rural folks have a whole different flavor where they live. Even though they may not know the owner, they probably know someone who does. It is much more personal. There isn't this sense of "hitting back" like there is in some parts of the city.

When man feels he's not in control he attempts to take control. He usually won't do it alone, however. If a 'gang-like' mentally picks up speed in a community it grows into a locomotive. It will get ugly.

You and I both know how impatient people get if the gas pump is slow. Imagine how it will be when folks don't get their food stamps or welfare check, they try to call the govt agency and get a busy signal (if they have a dial tone) and their baby needs formula.

In spite of all this, I encourage everyone to get to know your neighbor. Make it personal and you'll have a lot more luck in the city.

Blessings!

http://www.lifetel.com/y2k2000.htm

-- Pastor Chris (pastorchris@lifetel.com), August 03, 1998.



These days far too many people will do anything that they think they can get away with. If your city has no phone service or electricity they will be able to get away with alot. Think "Bloods" and "Crips". If they are willing to kill just because they were "Dis-ed" what might they do to keep from being hungry?

If you decide to barricade yourself in with your supplies what happens if your building catches on fire?

Good luck to anyone in a large city who plans to stay, I really mean that. I feel blessed not to have to make that choice.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 04, 1998.


I too find myself in this quandry. I live in a (normally) quiet negihborhood on the north side of Chicago. We have seen that it takes many city folk very little persuasion to riot. I remember a few years ago after one of the Bulls championships that there were riots in the streets downtown. Overturned cars, smashed windows, looting apliance stores. Tell me these people felt moral indignation in this case (like many may supposedly felt during the LA riots). This was during a CELEBRATION, for pete's sake! What will these people, and alot more, do if they face an actual, life-threatening crisis?

Fortunately, my father has recently bought property out in the sticks large enough for all the kids and grandkids. We just ordered our share of freezedried food, and my siblings are doing the same. I believe we will be as okay as any of us can be. My brothers are hunters and between all of us, we have a pretty broad base of skills (for city and suburban folk). Yet, I wonder now, as I imagine many of you probably are, just how far to go. We bought our house two years ago and really like it. Do we sell it now to get out at a profit? (If so, what do we DO with all that cash...carry around a bag of gold coins?) Or do we simply plan on being out of the city up at the retreat over the turn and cross our fingers about the house, maybe putting the things we value most in storage? I guess we all take some meassure of risk. Leaving the house unattended is risky if riots and looting set in. But short of selling the house, what other option do we have? Hire a couple of armed guards to protect the place for the week of our "holiday"?

Steven Slaughter Chicago

-- steven slaughter (shousedesn@aol.com), August 05, 1998.


Steven,

Your "Holiday" will likly be much longer than a week. If you are going to go, GO.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 06, 1998.


If you're considering staying in the city, read Urban Survival from y2kchaos.com.

It makes a good point -- if everybody else has bugged out or killed each other after a couple of weeks, you have the whole place to yourself. What it doesn't say, that I think is true, is that cities will be the first places to get power & other infrastructure back together.

Having said all that, I should point out that I live in the country -- for about 13 years now. We either know how to make the most out of living here, or know people who do. How well would you do if you're thrown into a completely unfamiliar situation? That's the question to ask yourself if you're contemplating a last-minute bugout.

-- Larry Kollar (lekollar@nyx.net), August 06, 1998.


<< Your "Holiday" will likly be much longer than a week. If you are going to go, GO.>>

Is it fair to say that we will know after a fairly short time (1-2 weeks) whether the utilities and other basic services are going to be out long term, or will outages likely be sporadic over many months? Preparations are a tricky thing to grapple with. They depend on one's baseline assumptions. Do we plan for one month (and take our chances with empty houses back in town), or do we lug EVERYTHING we would need for a long term stay (like my brother's 800 sq. ft. shop full of tools?) Obviously, you are right. At some point, you cross a threshold where it makes more sense just to relocate entirely and be done with it. Currently, my family and I don't want to move to a place that would be "ideal" (if one believes that the boonies are ideal), so we are trying to find this middle ground. Each decision has its own pros and cons, I guess.

All of this may change over the next few months, partly due to a book that I am now reading, which I highly recommend. And, believe it or not, it IS NOT a y2k book. Perhaps a good thought-provoking diversion for some of us. It is titled "A Reasonable Life: Toward a Simpler, Secure, More Humane Existance" by Ferenc Mate, and is a real mind-blower. It is a challenge to our whole modern way of thinking. Anyone familiar with Wendell Berry will appreciate it very much. It is basically a critique of our modern culture and a call back to a simpler, more self-sustaining way of life, where relationships come before stuff. With his bittersweet satire and commentary, this guy may pursuade me to reorient my life with or without y2k. I have been bugging my wife with frequent interuptions: "I HAVE to read you this page!" Permit me to offer just one paragraph of MANY that are really brilliant. This is from the paragraph titled "The Home Garden":

"The idea of growing real food around our house is stranger to us than eating an ant sandwich. It's as if some shame has come to be attached to hoeing soil, seeding land, nurturing fruit and plants to feed oneself and one's family directly from the labor of one's hands. But if the same man dons a suit, sells futures or builds atomic bombs and brings his pesticide-drenched, herbicide-riddled, waxed-coated apples, nitrogen-gassed tomatoes and color-injected cherries from the local supermarket in a thousand plastic bags, tin cans and colored boxes, then he is a man to be respected, somebody normal. Doesn't all this strike you as just a little strange?"

I am really savoring each part of this book. A few of the chapter titles provide a glimpse: The American Dream, No Vacancy; The True Cost of a Thing; Sunday; Home?!; The Home Garden; The Myth of the Steady Job; Humane Corporations; Unlivable Cities; Humane Small Towns; Losing Our Children; Television; A Reasonable Future.

I stumbled upon it in the Environmental section at Barnes & Noble. I don;t know why I was even looking there; I have never been an active environmentalist of any stripe. But he gets the reader thinking about all of the work and toil (much of it needlesslessly pollution-causing) we go through in exchange for often less-fulfilling, less connected, less joyful lives. It is published by Albatross Publishing House. I highly recommend it. I will likely be buying several more copies in the next year for gift-giving. Books like this may help convince some of us city dwellers just how nuts it is to live here, regardless of what the next eighteen months + hold.

Steven Slaughter Chicago

p.s. Let me know if any of you read it.

-- steven slaughter (shousedesn@aol.com), August 07, 1998.



Paul said," Read, listen and decide for yourself what may or may not happen, then act according."

In other words, guess.

And so you don't get too uncomfortable, forget that the consequences of being wrong in this guess may well be life and death.

If you can take the threat of y2k seriously, you will move out, or at the very least prepare a rural retreat. If you don't want to give up your lifestyle, you will clutch to any bit of optimism to allow yourself to stay.

Few have the courage of their convictions, courage to admit that the possibility of upheaval is high enough to warrant leaving their pathetic comfort zones. Lemmings all.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 07, 1998.


Ah Will. We can always count on you for a snide word. Good to know there is still some bastion of consistency in this world of constant change.

Of course you are right when you point out that I am guessing. I will, however, point out that you are too. We all are. That is the very thing that frightens so many people. The unknown is always scarier than familiar ground. And yes, some people will fail to leave their comfort zones because the unfamiliar can be such a scary place. It's simple human nature.

Now, there are two ways to make the unknown a less scary place. The first is to embrace it as an adventure to be learned from. The second way is to learn more about that which is unknown. You do that by reading, listening, analyzing and concluding. The two are not, by the way, mutually exclusive.

Anyway, my suggestion to learn and study about Y2K before acting stands. That is my advice on any subject which a person believes may have a serious impact on their life. To act against the most negative possible outcome if you believe that outcome extremely unlikely is not the wisest use of money and time. Of course, if you do believe in a sufficient possibility of the worst outcome, it would be foolish NOT to act against that possibility. The only way to know what to believe without letting yourself become overly emotional about a situation is to learn as much as you can before making significant decisions. That is what I said earlier in this thread, and it's what I will say again to anyone who asks.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 07, 1998.


Perhaps my answer was overly simplistic as it relates to a particular situation. I read a study once which concluded that successful people tend to decide quickly on a course of action and are rarely swayed, while less successful people tend to waffle. Time is running out, and the sooner you decide what your course is, the more time you have to prepare yourself for the disruptions that YOU foresee.

My belief is that the situation will deteriorate slowly at first, then gain momentum as Jan. 2000 approaches, not so much a 1 or 2 week clear-cut break in services. The electric industry has already admitted that de-regulation will lead to "an increase in surges, spikes, and brown-outs". Combine that admission with the large solar flares due at the same time, add Y2K, and shake well.

By selling now, in a good market, you would get top dollar. If you decide to return to the area after the worst is over, I would imagine that the market would be very depressed, and you could pick up some good deals on homes in the same neighborhood that your living in now.

Last thought, you are fortunate to have a choice that many are denied. Best wishes to you, and good luck whatever you decide.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 07, 1998.


Paul

Of course, why would you think otherwise?

Paul

Not some, almost all.

Paul

That is merely a persuasive technique to induce an open minded investigation of the problem. It is also a method of procrastination.

Paul

Not if the stakes are life and death, Paul. In the case of y2k, small preparations for the very worst now can mean the difference between surviving a worst case and not. It is therefore irrational to advocate anything less that a contigency for worst case. No one can afford the luxury of their opinions here, if the consequences of holding the wrong opinion are severe enough.

This is a no brainer. The most aware will realize that they are incapable of reaching a satisfactory conclusion regarding the eventual outcome of this situation. Given that fact, preparing for the worst case is the ONLY rational option available.

Inside that option is room for degrees. One may choose to move away completely, another, merely securing a place to which they can run. But anyone who does neither is a fool.

That is why I am so fed up with the "nobody knows for sure" blather.

It is time to get emotional, Paul.

NOTHING ELSE WILL GET PEOPLE OFF THEIR ASSES AND GET THEM TO PREPARING! THE NEWBIES HERE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF A YEAR TO "learn and study about Y2K before acting"

Carpe Diem.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 08, 1998.


Paul "Of course you are right when you point out that I am guessing. I will, however, point out that you are too."

Of course, why would you think otherwise?

Paul "some people will fail to leave their comfort zones because the unfamiliar can be such a scary place."

Not some, almost all.

Paul "Anyway, my suggestion to learn and study about Y2K before acting stands."

That is merely a persuasive technique to induce an open minded investigation of the problem. It is also a method of procrastination.

Paul "To act against the most negative possible outcome if you believe that outcome extremely unlikely is not the wisest use of money and time."

Not if the stakes are life and death, Paul. In the case of y2k, small preparations for the very worst now can mean the difference between surviving a worst case and not. It is therefore irrational to advocate anything less that a contigency for worst case. No one can afford the luxury of their opinions here, if the consequences of holding the wrong opinion are severe enough.

This is a no brainer. The most aware will realize that they are incapable of reaching a satisfactory conclusion regarding the eventual outcome of this situation. Given that fact, preparing for the worst case is the ONLY rational option available.

Inside that option is room for degrees. One may choose to move away completely,another, merely securing a place to which they can run. But anyone who does neither is a fool.

That is why I am so fed up with the "nobody knows for sure" blather.

It is time to get emotional, Paul.

NOTHING ELSE WILL GET PEOPLE OFF THEIR ASSES AND GET THEM TO PREPARING! THE NEWBIES HERE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF A YEAR TO "learn and study about Y2K before acting"

Carpe Diem.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 08, 1998.



Will, you said:

<< This is a no brainer. The most aware will realize that they are incapable of reaching a satisfactory conclusion regarding the eventual outcome of this situation. Given that fact, preparing for the worst case is the ONLY rational option available.>>

Recently, the U.S Department Of Defense declassified a secret study on meteor and asteroid impact with Earth. It seems that the DOD has known for ever twenty years that space-faring objects strike Earth's atmosphere whit high frequency. Rather than the once in 100,000 years that we were all once told, it would seem that an object strikes the atmosphere and releases energy (read: explodes) equivilent to a 1 megaton nuclear bomb (or larger) every two weeks, on average. There are several examples of larger explosions occuring within the last two hundred years (Siberia and the Amazon were the ones presented.) In fact, the scientests doing the research are beginning to build a substantial case that the Great Chicago Fire may very well have been the result of a meteor exploding a few miles above the city. The have shown that if the meteor that levelled the forests in Siberia early this century had come along just seven minutes later it would have destroyed Moscow instead of a remote forrest.

Shall we all dig holes several miles deep and hide in them? After all, we cannot reliably predict when or where the next big strike will occur and we will undoubtedly get very little warning when it does become obvious. Therefore, by your argument, it is only rational to prepare for the worst case which here would mean the equivelent of standing in the middle of a nuclear explosion.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 09, 1998.


ROFLMAO!

Paul,

If the best you can do is argue that the odds of being hit by an earth killing asteroid and our society being devastated by Y2K are even remotely equivalent, or that the ability of an individual to mitigate these risks is comparable, then you are either dumber than I think you are or finally nearing the bottom of your bag of rationalizations.

Really very, very weak.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 10, 1998.


Congrats, Paul! You have finally gone of the deep end! I bet you went to see Armageddon this weekend. Asteroid? Deep Impact? I'm sorry, but you really are losing it! I'm in total shock from what you just wrote! We all know that Mrs. O'Malley's cow flatulated and caused the great Chicago fire! Asteroids?????? Get Help!!

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 10, 1998.

Cool. This is the reaction I was betting on.

BTW, cow flatulence isn't the official story: kicking over a lantern is. However, I'll bet that most people today would be hard pressed to believe one fussy cow started fires at almost exactly the same time over an area 26 miles wide. (It's called the Chicago fire because everyone knows the name Chicago and not everyone knows the names of all the other cities and towns that burned.) Damn, that's one hell of lantern to spread flames over that large an area that quickly. (We won't even mention the cow that would be required to kick something that far.). Besides, forget Chicago, that's just a theory. The Siberian meteor is generally accepted as fact, and the seven minutes thing is simple orbital mechanics.

Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that here is another situation where a demonstrable danger has recently come to light and is currently believed to be inevitable by those persons "in the know." Furthermore, when it does happen, nobody knows where it will happen or how bad it will be. Damage could range anywhere from a few thousand acres of trees and wildlife in a remote area to a city containing tens of millions of people. Nobody knows.

And yet, everyone thinks it's okay to laugh at me for having brought it up. Actually, I laughed too. The thought of humankind going underground to escape the big bad asteroid is pretty comical. But examine why you think so.

You are laughing because you have decided, through whatever process, that the chances of getting creamed by some rock from space is sufficiently low that it's not worth preparing for. In fact, you think it is so low it is comical. This despite the fact that there is a growing body of evidence to say that it can and eventually will happen to somebody. Fair enough. I too plan on doing absolutely nothing about space debris. I figure the lottery has a much bigger chance of impacting my life, and I don't play the lottery either.

So, what is the difference here? If somebody decides, through whatever process, that the chances of Y2K causing global (or even local) catastrophe are low enough that it doesn't merit survival level preparations, what's the beef? They have made their decisions and are acting on them, just as you have made and acted on yours.

Are you insisting that everyone in world agree with your conclusions? Are you saying that anyone who draws differing conclusions is automatically both wrong and simpleminded? It's okay for anyone to have your opinion? Your comments here and in other threads certainly sound that way. I understand and respect the fact that, to you, the risk of life altering (or ending) consequences from Y2K is sufficiently high to merit some extraordinary preparations. I have come to a different conclusion. So have a hell of a lot of other people who have spent time studying the problem. It's a pity that can't be given respect as well. Oh well, we will all find out together in the end.

Lastly, I think we all know that there are people out there in the world who are having the same reaction to Y2K as you had to the asteroid bit, namely laughter. Remember that they have given Y2K exactly the same amount of research and consideration that you gave the asteroid: none. This despite the growing evidence that is now public and has gotten coverage on both radio and television. Hopefully considering that will allow you to see that perhaps your conclusions are not the inevitable ones, and that there is in fact room for different reactions to the same information. If not, well, I tried.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 10, 1998.


Actually Paul, the theory of the asteroids smashing into earth and causing the great Chicago fire is probably a more realistic one than a cow farting. In fact, there were several simultaneous fires that day, and one that has gone largely ignored. That being the Peshtigo, Wisconsin fire on the same day. It is a widley known theory among scientists that the fires were caused by asteroids exploding as they entered the earth's atmosphere ...thus sending fireballs across Chicago, Peshtigo and wherever else they hit that day. I blieve there were 16 different fires that day. BUT what does this have to do with Y2K? I'm not expecting a fireball, I'm expecting power and food shortages. Those I can prepare for. Your analogy does not hold water. And I think the fact that you were "expecting the reactions" which you received is a bunch of bull. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Also Paul, read the New York Times editorial from August 3. If the Times says it's so...then it must be!

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 10, 1998.

You know, having carefully read Will's scoldings, I still don't really see what I will prevent and gain by moving out -beforehand-, other than securing the rights to brag about how "I was out beforehand." If it comes to complete disaster and me and the rest of the world being forced to give up all our creature comforts and we're all fending for ourselves, then having moved out of the city a year early and gotten a head start on my zucchini is not going to save me from doom. I can grow zucchini just as well after January 1, 2000 as I can now. If I can't because of some nuclear holocaust, then i would have been screwed either way. So why do anything except save and have a contingency plan?

-- Mary Chen (maryc@magnet.com), August 10, 1998.

Ahem!

If I can ask the bickering gentlemen to place their debate on hold for a moment I'd like to address the original question. The reason, as I understand it, for leaving the cities is one of safety. Do you believe the people around you will riot, or loot, or not? Do you feel like you will be able to care for yourself and your family or not? Do you feel comfortable with your preparations or not? And, yes, I do think you have to prepare in advance for any emergency you can forsee. Let me illustrae with a few examples that have nothing to do with asteroids, cows, or Chicago. I live in earthquake country. We are constantly told that "the big one" will hit us in the next 30-60 years. As I am in my mid 20"s, that's the better part of a lifetime for me. So how are you supposed to care for your family in advance? Prepare. We are told from childhood to have a minimum of 72 hours of foor, water, etc. on hand. "But that's not enough for Y2K." you say, "Y2K will last a lot longer, and no one will be comming to help." True. Let me tell you about a friend of mine who lived in a rural area during the El Niqo storms this past winter. She had 3 days food and water for her family. However when the road washed out and the trees came down it was the better part of a month before the National Guard could reach her home. By then she had hiked nearly 20 miles over rough terrain with 2 children under 6. Now she is prepared for 6 months, but she stil lives in the same house. A neighbor of hers was prepared in much the same way the "Y2K Survivalists" are avocating, off the grid, large garden, ample storage, and never had a problem. The point of this paragraph: an emergency can hit at any time, be it Y2K, a flood, an earthquake, whatever. Prepare you family in a place where you feel comfortable. Plant the zuccini now so it's there when the emergency hits. I live in a large town (pop 28,000) where I plan to stay. I've known my neighbors for most of my life. I volunteer with the local fire dept. and work with the neighborhood council. I know that during adversity we as a group have a better chance of surviving that we all would alone. We proved it during the El Niqo storms. True story: After the 'quake of 1906 in San Francisco, there were several fires. The largest, and most destructive, was the "Ham and eggs" fire. It was started by a woman who fired up a wood stove to feed her family breakfast outside after the 'quake. Sparks from the chiminy started the fire. Authorities evacuated most of the population, but one neighborhood (I forget if it was Chinatown or North Beach) refused to evacuate, and working together, saved their homes. My points: Emergency can come at any time, the smallest thing can start them, but working together, with the authorities in your communty, you can survive them. If you are comfortable doing that where you are now, ccarry on. If not, you may want to look at moving.

Blessed Be, Annie O'Dea

-- Annie O'Dea (tarotmaid@yahoo.com), August 10, 1998.


>If the Times says it's so...then it must be!

Uh, i hope you're being sarcastic. That's a pretty dangerous attitude to take otherwise.

-- Mary Chen (maryc@magnet.com), August 10, 1998.


Dave,

I'll make the point more bluntly. If I step on feelings, tough. The subtle approach seems doomed to failure.

"Prepare for the worst, hope for the best" is, to me, the ultimate bullshit I have heard in this entire discussion. It's intellectual laziness that avoids taking the responsiblity for making a tough decision, namely whether or not the situation merits survival-level preparations. Just becasue something *might* happen is no reason to assume that it will, or that it will happen to you. That applies to Y2K, asteroids, planes crashing into your house, trucks rolling over onto your car, or all other manner of things that happen appear to be unlikely yet happen anyway. The only way to act responsibly is to find out what is really happening and draw conclusions based on those events. Running around like Chicken Little just because things might get bad is a waste of perfectly good life.

Now, if you believe that Y2K does indeed merit that level of preparation, fine. Many well informed and knowledgable people have done so. Prepare, and more power to you. But don't expect everybody to come to the same conclusion, and don't assume that they are fools, morons, or other sorts of fools just because they disagree with you. Furthermore, don't assume that "the masses" need to be led. If you want to set an example and share it with anyone who will listen, great. Just don't expect people to follow blindly because you are telling them "it's really for your own good." That is perhaps the worst kind of conceit imaginable.

And yes, I fully expected at least Will to jump all over the asteroid schtick. One, he jumps over pretty much everything I post and two, I knew posting something that absurd would draw that reaction out of someone. That one was, as Will puts it, a "no brainer."

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 10, 1998.


Cool, just what I expected. I knew I would get this reaction from Paul if I stole his thunder about the asteroid theory. HEE HEE!!

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 10, 1998.

Just curious if any of you no big problem types wear your seatbelt?

What are the odds of a bad accident? Are they more or less significant than Y2K disruptions?

If there was a 5% chance you had a fatal disease, would you see a doctor?

Just curious.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 10, 1998.


Gods, Mary, one of my best friends is in downtown DC, as is my great-aunt . . . .

My husband's a network designer for a major corporation that's just been purchased. While wondering if he'll have a job at the end of this year, and what we'll do if he doesn't, the discussion came up. And we've decided to bail.

I grew up in rural SW Pennsylvania; my family's been there for five generations, in a town of about 5,000. All the things I howled about as a kid -- everybody knowing everybody else and ALL of your family being within a ten-mile radius, the difficulty in getting there, having wood stoves and composting toilets and rainwater cisterns because it costs a fortune to run the gas and sewer and water lines, gardening and canning all summer long -- are advantages from the other end of 17 years away from home . . . . We're hoping to get my husband's family to his grandparents' farm in Minnesota in late December: if the power goes out there, they won't notice for a month or so.

I don't know many of my neighbors here; I certainly don't think I'd be able to count on them if any serious fertilizer hit the separator. Like Annie, I live in earthquake country and furthermore am in Mormon Central, so the people around me often have a year's supply of food in their basements. I've learned a lot from talking with them. But when things blow up, they'll look to their own first and see to the gentiles with what's left over.

My primary concern with being in a city would be food distribution and staying warm. In a lot of city apartments there simply isn't space for any serious storage, and alternative energy requires a lot of retrofitting that may not even be allowed by the building codes in your area. I am strongly urging my friend and my great-aunt to come home for the winter break in 1999. If there are no serious disruptions, no problem: they head home afterwards and we've all had a great visit. If there are, we're all together in a town that plans to be snowed in for at least a couple of weeks every year, where people go around the neighborhood and check on each other if the lights or heat go out.

I think we'd be leaving even if Y2K wasn't looming up. The place isn't perfect from an urbanite's POV: it's the only county in Pennsylvania still on the Appalachian Economic Development's "severely economically depressed" list; the nearest movie theatre is half an hour's drive, as is the nearest mall, computer supplier, etc. Starbucks is something joked about; Barnes and Noble is "off in the city"; bagels are a rarity. But most of my high school classmates still live there and get along fine without these things; for more personal security, I'm entirely willing to give them up.

Mary, whatever you decide, blessings on you.

Aimil

-- Aimil Tanner (atdyer0906@hotmail.com), August 11, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ