In 1960 I was so poor that I had bathed in a bay in December. I had no towel to dry myself. I had no toilet and see-through paper. Slaves cannot afford such.

During that era I studied several graphs of man's technological progress and concluded that it won't be very long it will implode.

Will it? What do you think?

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), February 22, 1999

Answers

Of course it won't. Get a grip. The laws of physics ain't changing just because of numbers on a calendar. Computer software problems and technology 'imploding' are two different discussions entirely. If you want to live without technology - move. The Australian outback, Northern Canada, Tibet, parts of the Phillipines, plenty of islands in the Pacific, Tristan de Cunha in the Atlantic - if you want to live without technology just take off. Don't expect me to go with you though.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), February 22, 1999.

Dear Paul,

Have visited most of those areas that you mentioned. Nice and warm.

How many days can you shake and shiver in Minnesota or Dakota?

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), February 22, 1999.

Here we have an excellent example from the Book of Theology from the Church of the Divine Byte (worshipers of the the Great God Byte and his 8 personalities the Sacred Bits). In short the TechnoPhiles.

If I remember correctly this is sermon 3.01.12 rev C. The text is always rousing for all to hear, both the believers and the heathen infidel non-believers.

--------

Good God (the regular one), isn't it bad enough for the American-Love-It-Or-Leave-It crowd to go bashing about? Oh well, I all knew there was this pantheon out there waiting to be heard. Guess I shouldn't be shocked, but then to hear one of the high priests pontificate in such an articulate manner is quite unusuall.

-- Greybear

- Got Gizmos?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 22, 1999.

Paul, your ability to miss the point is notable, and your tangents don't lead anywhere. While I agree that the laws of physics are not gonna change, at least to the best of our knowledge, this fact hardly precludes the possibility that technological progress might eventually cause us drrrastic problems that would overshadow the obvious utility of tech. prog.

"Computer software problems and technology 'imploding' are two different discussions entirely." speaketh pAullyana.. Well, not if the computer software problems are of such magnitude that they stand a very good chance of stuffing-up millions of peoples' lives. Maybe that's only a small "i"-implosion, not quite the same scale as some mad scientist from the military accidently ripping usunder the universe or something, which would be a large "I"-implosion, perhaps generally along the lines that Not Again might have envisaged as being possible.

I doubt that Not Again would prefer to live without technology - he's always grumbling about how harsh it was for him going without - and much of today's technology helps make stuff so that we (the rich) aren't deprived of neccesities and comforts. And I don't think I'd wanna live without technology either. That being said, to ignore the real posibility that the sum of our innovations might lead to drastic and unwelcome calamities is to stick one's head..ah..., in the sand. Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons come to mind as technological innovations we'd all maybe be better off without. Maybe, t.v., maybe gunpowder, maybe drugs, maybe automobiles might turn out to be more trouble than they were worth; it depends on what happens next and how things pan out.

I believe that when we opened the pandora's box of utilizing tools, we obviously had to run with the ball and make the best of it; If given the chance most creatures do tend to adopt mutations so advantageous to survival. But sometimes mmutations go awry, or often the ones that get adapted prove fruitful for awhile but crash and burn at some later stage. Our dabbling with technology OBVIOUSLY displays the potential to be a bummer in the long run, just one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day you know. Some modern-day-Mengele might genetically engineer flying tarantula's, then where would we all be?? Hiding under the bed, that's where.

If Paul Davis really cannot see the link between y2k and Not Again's broad metaphor "technological implosion" then pAul is more daft than I'd imagined was ever possible.

if you want to live without technology just take off. Don't expect me to go with you though - PD

The prospect of forever being without Davis is almost enough to make me go Kozynski, but nah, he's fun to play with, like when a cat catches a moth.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), February 22, 1999.

People have had this idea about technology for a long time. Thomas Malthus published a book about it in 1798. Mary W. Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" came out in 1818.

There's nothing wrong with technology if it's used with wisdom and vigilance. The problem now is, there are very, very few people who understand the ways in which the current system is interconnected and how it relies on other parts of the system.

Short-term goals have replaced long-term planning. Not a good sign.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 22, 1999.

A few days ago there was a thread that someone started regarding a "CGI" -- Can't Get It. I think that Paul Davis is a living case study of this phenomoneon. He absolutely, positively, does not understand that Y2K will have serious consequences, that indeed we have set ourselves up for technological collapse because of what is essentially a "built-in design flaw" that lives within our life-sustaining interconnected systems. Paul is convinced, even at this late date, that whatever has to be fixed will be fixed by when it has to be fixed (e.g., banks), and that whatever is left that has not been fixed will not be of any serious consequence.

Time Will Tell.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 22, 1999.

I doubt that technology will collapse too, because of Y2K. Just limp, a lot, and make that planet-wide.

Global thermonuclear war, however, is a different kettle of fish. And if Y2K triggers it? Big ouch.

Wisdom makes a huge difference. Hindsight too. Wish there was a way to bottle and sell it. Think the folks in Washington D.C. would take a swig? Or is it only held in the hands of those on remote islands?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 22, 1999.

Diane, the opinion that I have regarding technological collapse due to Y2K is this: It should not collapse, but it will. If the power grid had been designed to allow isolation of utilities, if we had a banking system that was not teetering on the edge anyway due to such a small amount of cash on hand (~1.7%), if "just in time" inventory additionally allowed for at least a reasonable amount of stockpiling, if our computer controlled railroads still had manual procedures that could be effectively used in an emergency, etc., etc., then indeed -- Y2K would cause problems, but perhaps they could be managed.

So, in the strict sense, when our technological world collapses, it won't be solely due to Y2K. But it will be Y2K that gave the Big Push.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 22, 1999.

Rented our acreage to a big farm corp to grow onions. The following year we let only weeds grow there. I noticed that these grew in alternating rows of high and low sickly plants.

The following year we cultivated and seeded grass. Nothing grew.

A modern miracle of agricultural practices, herbicide.

I can cite many examples of follies that I have personally witnessed. Multiply these times X number of times by X number of years and what do you get?

-- fly .:. (.@...), February 22, 1999.

Amish And The Elevator

An Amish boy and his father were visiting a mall. They were amazed by almost everything they saw, but especially by two shiny, silver walls that could move apart and back together again. The boy asked, "What is this, Father?"

The father (never having seen an elevator) responded, "Son, I have never seen anything like this in my life, I don't know what it is."

While the boy and his father were watching with amazement, an old lady in a wheel chair rolled up to the moving walls and pressed a button. The walls opened and the lady rolled between them into a small room. The walls closed and the boy and his father watched the small circular numbers above the walls light up sequentially. They continued to watch until it reached the last number and then as these numbers began to light in reverse order. The walls opened up again and a beautiful 24 year old woman stepped out.

The father, not taking his eyes off the young woman, said quietly to his son, "Go get your Mother."

-- Wishing I was Amish about now (theyget@last.laugh), February 22, 1999.

excellent joke!!

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), February 23, 1999.

hee heee could use one of those too

-- oldenoughfor (time@machine.soon), February 23, 1999.

"Paul is convinced, even at this late date, that whatever has to be fixed will be fixed by when it has to be fixed (e.g., banks), and that whatever is left that has not been fixed will not be of any serious consequence."--Jack

Jack, precisely because there are so many CGI's like Paul that most at large assume know what they're doing and understand the problem so therefore it will all(or enough) get fixed in time, is the reason why it will collaps. From Management, to the Geeks, from government leaders to the average citizen. There's a very small minority of GI's who can't/couldn't fix it all, and the CGI's won't listen, or can't understand what they're saying.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 23, 1999.

Chris, that leads into an observation. Doomers nearly always make it clear that part of their worries about Y2K is that so much is unknown, especially with time now so short. Yet, pollyannas seem to take an Of Course Everything Will Be All Right approach (with Paul's comment regarding the laws of physics not changing certainly being one of the more interesting "justifications" that I have ever seen!) What does this mean, I wonder?....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 23, 1999.

Let us once again take a look at the TITLE of this thread, shall we?

Why Did I KnowThat Technology Would Collapse?

Now I really think that everyone here knows what every one of those words mean. Not Again! is predicting the collapse of technology. Now technology is not just computers, it is everything from chipped flints and fire making to advanced transportation systems and supercomputers. So he is going past computers to predicting something approaching the Stone Age. So Y2K must be worse than the Fall of Rome, the Minoan Destruction, and the Dark Ages. After all, technology was preserved and improved during all these times.

Guys, get over the knee jerk 'we gotta defend every gloomy statment'. Esp. get over it when there are no supporting facts. Please point to any FACT in the above post that relates to Y2K damage.

And pollyanna my B**T. I certainly expect Y2K problems. I have seen Y2K caused computer troubles for at least 2 years right now. I have been fixing Y2K computer troubles most of this year. The disagreement comes in over whether or not we can handle the bulk of problems in a timely manner. I say YES. We know how the previous posters on this thread feel.

My own current take on Y2K is a 3.5 - that is not territory where you don't expect anything but a 'bump in the road'. Crap, you guys think everyone who does not worship at the feet of TEOTWAWKI (is nothing sacred) is a pollyanna. I have seen CPR called the biggest pollyanna of all time - he expects a 6.7 as of the first of the month! Ask him if you don't believe me - his email address is on all his posts and is valid.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), February 24, 1999.

Chris said: "There's a very small minority of GI's who can't/couldn't fix it all, and the CGI's won't listen, or can't understand what they're saying. " This statement proves Chris is an idiot. Very few GIs are working on Y2K projects. There are lots of what you call CGIs who are working on Y2K projects. Again Chris how many systems have you remediated?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 24, 1999.

Dear Maria,

"There's a very small minority of GI's who can't/couldn't fix it all, and the CGI's won't listen, or can't understand what they're saying. "

When I first read your quote from Chris's post it did not make much sense to me. Even though it is a simple sentence I had to re-read it numerous times before I realized the true meaning of it.

One Einstein can change the world.

One great mind invents the internal combustion engine and it greatly changes the way we live.

Many smaller minds develop, implement and build on those original ideas. Most fail to have the vision to "see" the big picture where the consequenses of their development leads to until they result in disasters. They are not global thinkers; they can focus only on details.

One tiny example is herbicide that I mentioned above.

For every bushel of food the farmer grows, several bushels of topsoil blow and wash away.

Another tiny example: Hundreds of thousand of gallons of used motor oil containing heavy metal and other poisons are dumped into the earth every year by people who change their oil. All are thinking, "This little bit won't hurt" because they fail to see the big picture. But the end results are cancer, MS, etc. which don't occur many years later.

A programmer with a car manufacturer in Detroit stated in a post on this forum that his company was progressing well with its Y2K remediation in his department because of ONE super geek. He was the only one who could forsee, solve or whatever, what the majority of them could not.

Since there are very few super geeks/brains in this world they cannot fix our present problems because there is not enough of them to do this in such a short time. They can explain all they want to those of us of lesser intelligence. We won't comprehend it. Add to this that they also have to enlighten VP's, who are mostly lawyers and accounts, laypersons who make the big desicions...

Add to that the fact the most geek cannot express themselves with clarity... (I have read enough hardware and software manuals to verify this.)

If I am smart enough, I think that this is what Chris is trying to convey to us. We may perceive her as an idiot when in fact she is brilliant.

As a youth Albert's brain was perceived to be missing a few atoms and was treated accordingly.

-- fly .:. (.@...), February 24, 1999.

Fly I agree with a lot of your points but they are your points not Chris'. Chris couldn't come up with that stuff.

"I had to re-read it numerous times before I realized the true meaning of it". You thought of its meaning not Chris. If you stare at s**t long enough, you'll see digested food.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 24, 1999.

Maria, Maria, "Chris couldn't come up with that stuff."

Why couldn't she? She did!

I only posted a few examples of her overall observation about the Y2K remediations and I believe that these demonstrated that her statement is correct.

-- fly .:. (.@...), February 24, 1999.

fly has explained very eloquently what I was trying to say, thanks fly.

Maria, english is not my first language and I'm nowhere near as good a writer as fly is. Doesn't mean I can't come up with ideas or understand concepts.

fly understood what I meant, exactly.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 24, 1999.

"If I am smart enough, I think that this is what Chris is trying to convey to us. We may perceive her as an idiot when in fact she is brilliant.

As a youth Albert's brain was perceived to be missing a few atoms and was treated accordingly. "

fly, I use this Einstein analogy with my son, who is gifted but also dyslexic, he can't write at all. No amount of remediation has helped him, I have to type all his homework which he dictates to me. He's 15, and that is causing him great frustrations. He has a head full of ideas and insights, but can't express them in written form. I myself have problems expressing myself as shown above, but can only begin to comprehend his frustration. People like Maria are constently dissing him and dismissing him as idiot, teachers too. I'm not brilliant, but I can recognize brilliant people. That's my advantage. Those who can't will not learn from them.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 24, 1999.

I can identify with some of the posts here:

" We were not allowed to whisper, to move from our seats. I failed to hear, to understand Lindeman's homework assignment. His vocal cords vibrated too weakly to titillate my cilia enough, to evoke enough electro-chemical response, for me to receive it clearly. I wondered and thought a few seconds, as I did often, about what I had heard, to interpret what he had said. Once I failed to decode it and was too shy to ask him to repeat our assignment.

Back home, I meekly mumbled to Ma that I did not know what I had to do for my German homework. Her mother instinct drove her, on her bicycle, to Lindeman's house to ask him what he had assigned. Upon returning, she informed me that I was to compose sentences using adjectives such as "dumb, fat and lazy." I understood the message Lindeman had sent me.

I am dumb, fat and lazy. I will get a good grade if I write: Headcheese is dumb. Starving people dont get fat. A. is lazy.

Although I was skinny, I appeared chubby because I had a roundish face like Ma. I truly believed that I was dumb. Ma, A. and my teachers told me so. Adults treated me as such, gave me special names and frequent spankings for not paying attention and for not having any brains. Insults, scolding and spanking were the only "special ed" that I received in this highly developed Aryan society.

Recently our nation added 120,000 new students to our learning disabilities list. They are eligible for special ed. To educate such a disabled student costs anywhere from ten to twenty- five thousand dollars a year. Theres something I dont understand about this.

Little Brother and I always worked diligently because of the strap adorning Ma. We even had to rake the footpaths around our house to embellish the dirt with parallel lines for Sundays. Parallel lines looked nice on the pathways because no one else had them.

To escape from the effects of my "special ed" I read everything I could find. I disappeared in books. The first one was Robinson Crusoe. I daydreamed in class, soared with the birds, swayed in palm trees and drifted in lagoons. When I paid close attention to the teacher I could hear and understand what he said. But I was unable to concentrate for very long and drifted away.

Lindeman sneaked up from behind, always from behind, and brought me back with a painful tug on my ear. This did not seem to be the solution to loosen the knots in my gristle. So Lindeman decided one day that more drastic measures were needed.

According to protocol: "Suelzenkopf, come here," he shouted.

I fell out of a palm tree.

Noaaauuueeeee!

Tail between legs, I swung on vine to front of class.

"Lean over this desk."

Trembling I complied. I even forgot my name because my gristle was now demagnetized. The pupil sitting at this desk obligingly moved aside to give us more room. He had manners. Lindeman gripped his stick; I gripped the desktop with both paws. My cheek on oak, I tightened muscles to flee from my body.

Cool wood, smell of ages.

"When" whip, I further compressed my sphincter to keep stuff from blowing out,

"will" whip,

"you" whip,

"pay" whip,

"attention?" whip.

When Lindeman thought that he had cured my post-traumatic stress syndrome caused by fire bombings and other human affairs, he ordered me back to my desk and said something I had felt to be the case for a long time:

"Suelzenkopf, there is no hope for you."

These were the wisest and falsest words ever spoken in Simonswolde. They caused the saddest feelings anyone ever had in this little village.

After school Ma and I met Mr. Lindeman on the street.

"I tried to beat some brains into your son," he informed her. "Gut, immer tuechtig drauf los," she encouraged him. In America she could be a cheerleader. I will remember her words longer than God's children will remember the ones Moses brought back from the burning bush.

At home Ma locked me in the peat bin. To be spanked by a teacher was a punishable offense to be rewarded with long sulking in the blackest void in the universe. Ma and Lindeman did not know that they were creating another ghost in my soul. Neither did I, it would come to haunt me later. Along with all the others.

Children afraid of the night

Who have never been happy or good."

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), February 24, 1999.

Paul Davis wrote:

Now I really think that everyone here knows what every one of those
words mean. Not Again! is predicting the collapse of technology.
Now technology is not just computers, it is everything from chipped
flints and fire making to advanced transportation systems and
supercomputers. So he is going past computers to predicting something
approaching the Stone Age. So Y2K must be worse than the Fall of Rome,
the Minoan Destruction, and the Dark Ages. After all, technology was
preserved and improved during all these times.

Well, yeah, I'd say thats what "Not Again!" is calling for. Which is no different, really, then what Infomagic's "De-evolutionary Sprial" postulates. Of course, if you are a CGI -- "Can't Get It" -- then of course its going to seem like nonsense, because in order to understand the idea of a total technological collapse, you have to understand that the world that we live in is heavily I-N-T-E-R-C-O-N-N-E-C-T-E-D, and that solving the Y2K problem goes beyond merely having experience remediating code.

But no CGI is able to comprehend the interconnected aspect of Y2K. A CGI is never able to see the forest, only the trees.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 25, 1999.

My life was strange.

After I was a slave I became sucessful. Then without much thought my wife and I left the big city in the 70's and moved to very small town with no prospect of finding jobs. Instictively we have been preparing for what is to come. Built a passive solar house, planted fruit trees and a garden.

I lived my life without much forethought or planning. In hindsight I made all the right moves to get here. When I should have died many times, I am very much alive. Its almost as if I was blindfolded all my life and someone guided me though a minefield (literally, physically and emotionally.)

Now I feel like the wise long-bearded cartoon man sitting on top of a mountain watching the panic below.

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), February 26, 1999.

Please, can someone answer my original question? Why did I know this so long ago?

-- Not again! (seenit@ww2.com), February 27, 1999.

"Not again",

Technology and knowledge have been growing exponentially since about 1750. Unfortunately, wisdom hasn't.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 28, 1999.

"Not again",

Another way to answer your question is a quote I read a long time ago. It goes something like this...

"Most people talk about other people. Some talk about events. A few are willing to discuss ideas."

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), February 28, 1999.

TTF!!!! WHy iS IT SO???? HOw CAN IT BE ThUS???? is it yoUr insAnity????? is it your AnsiCHt DER WELt????? IS it yOur KAMPf ZuM UBeRLEBen?????? IS IT Ihre BoHRUng in IhREm Haupt????? JA??? NIeN???? MOGliCHErweiSE?????? NIEN!!!!! YoUr are waxING FOr siMPLer timEs, IS tHis nOT SO????? TO RELivE A JugENd WASTED IN slaVERy?????? To reCAPtURE TiMES OF glUcK CHEaTED FRom yOU???? dieTER THiNKS THis maY BE SO, DOes he nOT?????? ja!!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), February 28, 1999.

Kevin,

You are so correct. Few people can discuss many ideas because a host of emotions "dominates" and "pollutes" their thinking process. However, at that time I did not think much. My emotions did not allow it, my people-caused reality was too grim. Yet I had this foresight. As well as many others that have proved to be correct.

Dieter,

You asked many good questions. That is one way to think. Often it is more difficult to ask questions than it is to get their answers.

Up to now I have NOT bothered to read any of your posts because of your annoying habit with your keyboard. You are not trying to annoy but trying to hide an aspect of yourself.

+++To reCAPtURE TiMES OF glUcK CHEaTED FRom yOU???? +++ :

Wrong! I more than made up for it. Ha, you think I'm a suffering bastard. Consider this:

"My wife and I moved to X and began our new jobs, she with an engineering firm, I in an architect's office. Early on we decided we deserved an elevating experience since we both had worked so hard for so long. We decided to travel. Wifey had completed four years of studies in three years, even while changing her major three times. I earned a degree with little financial support from anyone. This five- year curriculum took me six years to complete, since I had worked during college and suffered a few setbacks in the battles with my math test ghost. I also had skipped one semester to catch up on my earnings.

As we formed our travel plans we concluded that we would be able to save enough for a trip around the world. And save we did. With this prospect, it was not too difficult to squirrel away all of wifeys paycheck and some of mine if we bought only absolute necessities. I had always survived at the lowest level and her great- great-grandfathers had worn skirts and played bagpipes in Scotland....

After working for one and a half years, wifey and I quit our jobs to begin our first major trip. We made arrangements to cruise for two months to Europe by way of the Pacific. We would travel there for three months with Eurailpasses before cruising home again across the Atlantic."

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww.com), February 28, 1999.