How much of a fix is enough to muddle through? Nobody knows. Can we identify those things that may help to reduce the steepness of a slide? That's the point of this thread, the assumption being that we start out with an initial impact of 4 or 5 on the scale for this discussion, however unrealistic some of us may think this actually is.

The most optimistic assessments that I have seen, for the U.S. private sector, are in the range of 80% - 85% of mission-critical systems being fixed by the rollover deadline. The U.S. Federal Government, according to Congressman Horn's reports, estimates only two-thirds of Federal mission-critical systems will be ready. This says virtually nothing about non-mission critical systems, except perhaps that they are not in large part even being addressed.

For the rest of the world percentage completion estimates vary considerably, but are less than the U.S., and substantially less for some countries that have started very late or not at all yet. Last summer a survey by the World Bank indicated that of about 138 countries that they loan to, only 37 had even heard of Y2K. I remember briefly seeing a more recent survey and the results were not much changed. We live in an era of the global economy and global interdependencies, and so must consider this when trying to identify what factors are important in potentially reducing this sliding.

Given the sentiment on our forum poll that from the middle of the scale to a 10 is a slippery slope, what can enable us to "get our footing" and prevent or reduce a slide into TEOTWAWKI?

We probably cannot answer the question "How much of a fix will be enough", but I think it is worth a try to at least identify what key factors come into play with regard to reducing the slide, and as a result clarify our own thoughts, and perhaps even gain some insight.

Two cents: I have been thinking about the idea that all TEOTWAWKI is local. Assuming this is true, as well as our other assumption regarding a modest initial impact, can we generalize and say that while there Will be impacts virtually everywhere, they may be in different industry sectors and locations, at different times and of varying degrees? For example: Folks near Hydro-electric plants and other regions have enough juice, others don't. Some have water problems, some don't. Would a logical approach NOW be to identify which areas have the best chance for a particular industry in their area to be ready, and then concentrate remediation of that industry in that spot, while a different area may have no realistic chance of fixing that same industry but a good chance at having another ready on time. What I am thinking here is pockets of local sector readiness that eventually can be linked.

Those of you who have read my posts over the months know the idea that Y2K is systemic is not lost on me, that I am playing "devils advocate" here. I know that there isn't enough time for anywhere near 'everything', but perhaps an approach like this would give us enough time to increase our chances of not sliding down the slope as far in a muddle through scenario. All of this is just thinking out loud. I am asking: if by using an approach to remediation like this NOW, would we increase our chances of not collectively slipping down the slope, since we enhance the chances of some locations having some sectors ready by identifying which locations have the best chance at fixing what, and concentrating our resources in the little time remaining accordingly?

You may have some completely different ideas. What are your thoughts? Assuming for the sake of discussion that it is even possible, how can a slide towards TEOTWAWKI be reduced in the little remaining time left?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 12, 1999

Answers

Even with the best of intentions, how can this managerial syndrome be bypassed? A Programmer Tells It Like It Is

First having identified which locations have the best chance at fixing what...

I think to some extent the preservation of (relatively) functional islands will occur naturally. But then there's the scenario of The Postman to consider.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 12, 1999.

rob, in those states that instituted a state-wide trauma care system, it took a very long time to ge the system up, running , accepted, and used in the whole state, by everybody (relevance is coming, just be patient for a bit dear fly, trust me). the first step was the initial legislation, which usually tok YEARS to enact, and was viewed as a tool by the Big Hospital/Big Insurance cabal to eliminate small hospitals. However, eventually the relevant state legislatures realized it was a tool to save lives and to increase the quality of the lives saved.

Then the small hospitals went to court to prevent the automatic diversion of patients to the big hospitals, believing this to be anti- competitive. Wholy missing the point that the big hospitals had Level I trauma capabilities IN PLACE, not on the drawing board. After a long effort, the gov't mandated distribution of injured was validated in court after court.

The small hospitals found that they could either bankrupt themselves for the primary patients in Trauma by setting up a Level I facility (NIT CHEAP) or they could become neighborhood hospitals. These eventually get offers they can't refuse and join "Networks" and function as feeders to tertiary facilities. (trauma/ER = Primary, In-patient (many levels of surgery, illnesses etc) = Secondary, refer to a "Specialist" is tertiary).

Hand in the back: "Par'n Doc, buh WHU da FUH DIS GOT TA DO WI Y2K??"

The parallels are fairly obvious. That which is for the greater good of the people may not coincide with each company's belief of what is good for it, and the courts will be where the decision is made, later, much later. Put plainly, while a system of resource allocation to the specific likely survivors of any industry, based on an analysis of the survivability of specific regions makes a WHOLE LOT OF SENSE FROM THE VIEW OF THE PEOPLE, it makes very little sense in the eyes of the individual companies. Therefore, we have the inefficiency of the free market triumphing over rational theory, again.

which would you rather have, a surviving corporate and societal infrastructure or a surviving way of life/political-social infrastructure??

My answer:::: BOTH.

Want to sit and look at my cake for a week, but want to EAT SOME NOW!!!

Anyone who can show how we can do both, go ahead, but ya might want to address the comments to the collective fundamental orifice down at the Potomac River Mouth.

Chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 12, 1999.

This is all theoretical since it would require leadership at the federal level. We have no leaders. We have electoral experts who are proficient at detecting the direction of a stampede and then jumping in front to be the "leaders."

But your thread is interesting. In general terms, we (the US)have a federal budget surplus, surpluses of all commodities, massive private wealth and well-documented knowledge that all imports, including oil, will be subject to disruption in 2000, especially from mid-January forward. So, armed with this knowledge, the logical thing to do is to stock up now and use the fully functioning infrastructure to distribute essential goods around the country to build a more resilient emergency supply system.

Let's assume that warehouses are already being efficiently used, so it would be difficult to use normal warehousing to exploit the currently function infrastructure. The challenge then is to use "out of the box" thinking to store distributed materials.

One solution would be for the government to essentially mandate that every household act like a GI, regardless of what the heads of that household actually thought about y2k. Remember that any stockpiling is significant when you multiply it by 250 million.

If everyone would store two weeks worth of meals, then that's over 10 billion meals that the military would not need to supply to a panicked populace. One month? 21 billion meals. (Based on 3 meals per day.) If everyone stored one gallon of water per person per day? That's over three billion gallons of water that would not have to be produced and transported in a two week period. Thirty days? Seven billion gallons.

An emergency appropriation bill should provide funds sufficient to provide a food cache for the indigent. The food for identified indigents should be cached at a central secure location for distribution when the need arises, otherwise the indigent, who will mostly be poor planners, may dissipate their supplies before the crisis.

The government should mandate sure that coal fired and oil fired utilities have extended supplies on hand at year end. If storage facilities are not currently available, then makeshift storage arrangements should be made now. (Ex: can new storage tanks be built now? If not, could coastal generation units have fuel stored aboard tanker ships with a trucking or piping plan to get fuel to the plant. Are there surplus rail tank cars which could be brought on site for temporary fuel storage? The government should assist financially weaker utilities with financing these stockpiles if necessary.

Are there storage facilities in the US holding crude which could hold a refined product like gasoline? Then make sure that the maximum amount of refined product is being stored. Don't let refined product be shipped out of the country until our storage is maxed out.

There is a glut of petroleum on the market. We should store as much refined petroleum as possible. There is much unused tanker capacity. Those tankers should serve as floating reserves. They should be filled and in US waters at year end, not bobbing up and down empty in the Indian Ocean.

Drug makers run at near capacity, but are there some lifesaving medications that could be produced in surplus? If so, the government should mandate that insurance company limitations on bulk drug purchase should be lifted and surplus drugs should be stockpiled by individuals now to the extent that they can be produced. The government should store a stock of these drugs for the indigent.

All of this probably assumes a worse scenario than you set up in the premise. I could go on like this for quite some time, but you get the gist of my thinking. I'll hand they keyboard to someone else.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 12, 1999.

At a 5, TEOTWAWKI is inevitable. This is not the same as TEOTW. Islanding is very probable. See Harlan Smith's "Austere Infrastructure" http://www.scotsystems.com/harlany2k.html - In order to reconnect the islands one must assume quite a variety of circumstances are right. Controllable civil disorder, food delivered, usable telecomm, usable utilities, water, sewage, sufficient fuel, etc. One must assume sufficient amounts of sub-infrastructure components available in order that the reconnection proceed. One must assume that erosion of the knowledge base has not proceeded to much of an extent.

It isn't so much preventing TEOTWAWKI, just a hard hit to the Ad and Entertainment Industries will effect that easily, it is using the islands to create a sustainable balance between resources and population comfort. If each island is able to reach prolonged steady state, then it might be possible to create Wide Area Civilizations. If the islands fail to reach steady state, erosion of knowledge and components will create a situation in which the rebuilt Wide Area Civ resembles our current Civ less and less.

I'm not sure that we as a Civ retain at this late date any control over the type of re-emergant Society. This will create potential political conflict even if reconnecting Islands is physically possible.

Harlan's Austere Infrastructure idea is probably the best idea out there which outlines a possible course to follow in order to retain "enough to rebuild."

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), February 12, 1999.

Islanding is an interesting topic. Remember a few years ago when there was talk about the northwest US joining up with British Columbia and forming a separate nation. Hey, if they've got massive amounts of fresh water and hydropower, not to mention tasty animals on land and in the sea, why should they support our deficit spending mid-east petrochemical dependent butts in a y2k world? DOH! Dope slap! I forgot about Sherman's boys burning down my great-great grandfather's home and business! Sorry Oregon! That self-determination stuff is good for Chechnyans but it doesn't fly over here.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 12, 1999.

Cascadia RULES !!
Ultimately it comes down to environmental issues.
Right now Oregon is experiencing an unprecedented ecological disaster.
And off the coast of Seattle, another ship just lost power & navigation and is floundering.
Cascadia, if its concerns are not met soon, will protect itself.
This is not radical, simply survival.
Long live Cascadia!

Ashton & Leska in Cascadia, the most beautiful swath of terrain on Planet Earth

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 12, 1999.

Rob - I think Puddin is right - there may not be any way to bail out the whole mess, but parts of it could be salvaged...the problem is whether big brother will allow that to occur, or insist that everyone suffer just like everyone else.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 12, 1999.

Tom: Thank you for your post. I know where Andy is "coming from" being in the IT industry for over twenty years and also having consultant experience, and understand your point, which is valid. I have seen first-hand the "managerial syndrome" coupled with what is sometimes referred to as the "quarterly mentality" in upper manangement - that is, if it doesn't happen this quarter (and does not affect Corporate earnings), then it doesn't exist. I am not familiar with "The postman" scenario though. What is it?

p.s. I used that long list of links you posted to the troll (Willie, I think) as a start to set up a binder full of Y2K evidence back in November and have always meant to thank you for it.

Chuck: I get the parallels. When you wrote: "Put plainly, while a system of resource allocation to the specific likely survivors of any industry, based on an analysis of the survivability of specific regions makes a WHOLE LOT OF SENSE FROM THE VIEW OF THE PEOPLE, it makes very little sense in the eyes of the individual companies." Consider two points. First, that the individual companies consist of, to some degree, the same people to whom the idea makes sense on an individual basis. Soes that mean that enough people in a company, and by extension, enough companies will act in what is individually perceived to be in the individuals interest but not the companies? My answer would be only when, and IF, the interests are finally perceived to be mutually beneficial. Second, the maverick investor Douglass Casey once remarked something like "Even Governments may resort to common sense, if they become desparate enough". I always liked that. Will it be too little too late? It may already be, who knows.

Puddintame: We are the leaders in their absence, don't you think? Given that we currently have what I will call "government by poll", and that Y2K is not an issue yet with J.Q. Public, is it any wonder? There is no political Y2K constituency lobbying and passing out the bucks. Your point about thinking out of the box is one I have posted about before - that Y2K must be solved, to the extent possible, in this way. The problem with taking some actions as you suggested (which I whole-heartedly agree with) is the risk of precipitating a panic, especially in the banking sector. See the thread called "Panic: Inevitability and Timing" for the discussion on this. Other actions seem to be prudent, and non-threatening, such as stockpiling oil reserves, etc.

Mitchell: It looks like there is quite a bit that needs to all go right for this concept of islanding, which is basically what I was thinking about, to come off. Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 12, 1999.

Leadership, not spinsmanship, manager-ship, or "there is nothing in it for me" will be required at every level: family, community, wider area civ. It's tempting, but let's not ourselves mock and deride the power of what we know we don't have much of anymore. LEADERSHIP matters enormously. The old-fashioned personal kind.

Stepping up to it takes enormous risks if Y2K is hovering around a 5 but threatening to go Milne, including the willingness to risk our lives. Easy to say on a NG, huh.

And terminally depressed as I am by the feds, crisis can evoke excellent political leadership as well as demagogery (cf American Revolution, Civil War, on both sides, tragically enough).

As Graybear might say,

"Got courage?"

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 12, 1999.

I had a dream that I was still living in the big city that I currently live in and y2k hit. Everything went down; there were food, water, power, and information shortages everywhere. Civil disturbances, vandalism the works. How did I make it? The neighborhood where I live became a village; everyone took care of everyone. Each person was important because each person adds to the carrying capacity of the whole. Some would guard the neighborhood some would barter for food and supplies with other neighborhoods. People with skills used those skills for the good of the whole. Why because in the cities that is what it will take to survive someone to watch your back when you sleep. No one will be strong enough to go it alone you will need friends. Yes it was only a dream however it may be the only chance that some have to survive this terrible thing called Y2K. Tman

-- Tman (Tman@IBAgeek.com), February 12, 1999.

What is "The Postman" scenario? Tom? Anyone?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), February 12, 1999.

The Postman is a science-fiction novel by David Brin. It's set in a post-apocalyptic world, civilization essentially destroyed in a world-wide nuclear exchange.

The protagonist is a lone survivor who has been shanghaied by a band of predators who survive by taking anything they can find from any who has it. He escapes from them. In his flight he finds a wrecked U.S. mail truck. He's cold so he liberates the driver's jacket before moving on. Eventually he finds a group of people who have kept some semblance of social order,and are making do as best they can. They mistake him for a representative of the U.S. Government.

One thing leads to another and he becomes instrumental in locating other groups of survivors and coordinating their efforts to defend themselves against the roving predator bands. After much struggle the predators are eliminated and the isolated groups begin to establish some sort of decent civilization.

Critics didn't like it much, and liked the eventual movie (with Kevin Coistner) even less. I had read the book some time ago, thought it fairly well done as s/f goes. The movie takes many liberties with the novel, but movies always do. It was pretty flamboyant, but (I thought) worth seeing. All this was long before Y2K became a household word (here and there).

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 13, 1999.