OK, maybe the title of this post is overstating my point. But stay with me.

One arguement against the pollys is that their brains are compartmentalized, and do not see the full implications of the evidence that is all around us. I see the same problem on the other camp as well.

For example, when there is talk of mainframe failures that shut down businesses, this gets put into the "economy" file. The economy is in trouble if big companies cannot function. Solution "get out of debt, get liquid assets on hand" etc. Then we here that the water system might/probably will fail in xyz cities. this is filed in the "water" file. There will be water shortages. Solution "store some water". I could go on and on.

I try to imagine a large city with no water supply. The first thing I think of is that most residents will either try to flee or spend their days trying to obtain water/food/other items needed for life. I cannot imagine much economic activity going on until things are put back together. If there is no economic activity going on, i.e. no goods produced, that will affect companies in other regions of the country that have working infrastructure.

So besides the obvious connections (if there is no electricity, there is no water. If there is no coal, there is no electricity. If there is no long distance phones, it is hard to run the electical grid, etc. etc.) There are many more links and connections we need to ponder.

My own take on things is that it is going to take a really long time to get things put back together. My image is that a y2k bugs will blow up a chemical factory in Florida that makes a stabalizer for a plastics company in Alabama, that makes raw material for a company in Tennessee that makes a certain plastic wrap. The problem is that someone has made a hot dog factory somewhere that is really automated. It only works if they have that special wrap. Without it, the hot dog factory sits idle.

It takes years to build these highly automated systems. It will take a long time to build up the distribution of all the pieces, parts, and supplies that keep our economy running.

So flame away (sorry to borrow someone else's name) and tell me how I am completely out of it.

-- David Holladay (my real name and e-mail address)

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), May 14, 1999

Answers

?huh?

-- Joe Six-Pack (Average@Joe.Blow), May 14, 1999.

David:

I live in Michigan. If/when the auto industry slows down or goes down because of this very issue, we will be in BAD shape. When Detroit gets a cold, the rest of the state develops pnuemonia........

I think you have a very valid point, this is what I'm trying to plan for (a sustainable level of simple self sufficiency).

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), May 14, 1999.

I agree with six pack...?huh?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), May 14, 1999.

Graham, the protagonist in H.G. Wells' novel, When the Sleeper Wakes (published in 1899), says:

"We were making the future," he said, "and hardly any of us troubled to think what future we were making. And here it is!"

He'd been revived after being in suspended animation for 230 years or so. He didn't exactly enjoy the world he found.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 14, 1999.

David,

If you consider what I say in this reply as a flame, then we disagree on the definition of the word. I will not attack you ad-hom, nor will I deny your right to hold the opinions you hold. Hope that covers it.

My reply to the points made in your post are as follows. . . (just my opinion, and as valid as yours, k ?)

[snip] One arguement against the pollys is that their brains are compartmentalized, and do not see the full implications of the evidence that is all around us. I see the same problem on the other camp as well.

[I am pleased to see that you apply your theory to both sides of the debate. Now if you could explain what your theory actually IS (what symptoms does having a compartmentalized brain produce, what is the alternative ? A holistic brain ? Do you have an example of scientific papers explaining both principles ?]

[snip] For example, when there is talk of mainframe failures that shut down businesses, this gets put into the "economy" file. The economy is in trouble if big companies cannot function. Solution "get out of debt, get liquid assets on hand" etc. Then we here that the water system might/probably will fail in xyz cities. this is filed in the "water" file. There will be water shortages. Solution "store some water". I could go on and on.

[Its a surprise to you that people tend to identify areas of "perceived risk" and then attempt to apply their own specific fix or work round to that issue ? What alternative are you recommending ?]

[snip] I try to imagine a large city with no water supply. The first thing I think of is that most residents will either try to flee or spend their days trying to obtain water/food/other items needed for life. I cannot imagine much economic activity going on until things are put back together. If there is no economic activity going on, i.e. no goods produced, that will affect companies in other regions of the country that have working infrastructure.

[You scenario seems to assume a city populated by citizens who are completely devoid of the most basic level of assistance from any agency or organiation who's job it may be to respond to this kind of incident under any normal everyday circumstances. Thus the population behaves as a hoard of uncommunicative individuals with nothing but their own self interest in mind. This doesn't seem to me to be a typical response in human social interaction. Take as an example the normal everyday occurrences of weather-related crises, earthquake zones, or even think back to London during The Blitz. What usually happens is that when the dust of the first hours has settled, and with a little help and support from the public service organisations, (who are extensively trained to deal with this kind of stuff), society tends to pull together, not apart. There will always be isolated incidents of self-motivated oportunism, (looting, panic etc) but they tend to remain isolated and more or less insignificant. (It's helpful to avoid the "I know how ILL respond, its those other billion or so wackos who make up the rest of the dumbass population that I worry about" thought-process). Your scenario also extrapolates the impact of the city crisis onto other parts of the broader "interconnected" (your terminology) environment willy nilly, with nothing to back it up except supposition.]

[snip] So besides the obvious connections (if there is no electricity, there is no water. If there is no coal, there is no electricity. If there is no long distance phones, it is hard to run the electical grid, etc. etc.) There are many more links and connections we need to ponder.

[Youve now jumped from water to power. And coal, and telecomms. You are in fact putting forward a scenario of total infrastructure failure. If youre suggesting that this scenario is one which we should, bearing in mind the information available on the state of the Y2K problem, consider seriously, then you paint a picture far darker and more doomlit than just about anyone on this board I can think of. (Is that you Gary ?)]

[snip] My own take on things is that it is going to take a really long time to get things put back together. My image is that a y2k bugs will blow up a chemical factory in Florida that makes a stabalizer for a plastics company in Alabama, that makes raw material for a company in Tennessee that makes a certain plastic wrap. The problem is that someone has made a hot dog factory somewhere that is really automated. It only works if they have that special wrap. Without it, the hot dog factory sits idle.

[New scenario. OK, question. Did it ever cross your mind that failures of manafacturing plants (such as your chemical factory) happen pretty frequently in the real world right now. What happens is that the system adjusts, and fast. There is a professional discipline known as "Business Continuity Planning" which is dedicated to identifying areas of risk to an economic entity, and providing redundancy systems in case of failure. Your example sees company managers sitting in their boardrooms trembling and whispering "oooh . . we really hope nothing goes wrong with our supply chain". Not realistic.]

[snip] It takes years to build these highly automated systems. It will take a long time to build up the distribution of all the pieces, parts, and supplies that keep our economy running.

[And guess what David. You're the FIRST PERSON EVER TO REALISE THAT. Best you fire off an email to the government warning them about this incredibly fragile system that you just identified, and recommending that they send out a few smarties to check it out. Theyll probably give you the congressional medal of honour. Sorry for the sarcasm, but you have to realise the ultimate paranoia behind the suggestion that this life-threatening scenario exists, and the only place where its implications are being considered is on a small web forum in cyberspace. Dont you think that anyone anywhere who works for an organisation which forms part of this huge network of capitalistic supply chain isnt busy right now making sure that their company is well protected, and that theyll still have a job in a few months time ? After all, if they've heard of Y2K (and how would you think they wouldnt have ?) then you can bet your bottom dollar they know what its about, and how long is left. But if you must have something to obsess about, I guess its as good a phobia as any.]

Next ?

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 14, 1999.

What you are saying is just what Gary North calls the Domino Theory and what Ed Yourdon refers to as the Ripple Effect.

The two main questions of the Y2K problem are this. 1. What level of breakdowns will occur, when will they occur, and how severe will they be? That is just one aspect and one question. The other central question is how robust are our system of mutual dependancies? Ie. if you have 5 processes, each one dependant on the other, and each one suffers a 50% reduction in efficiency does the overall whole become 50% less efficient, 3.125%, something in between, or will there be total collapse. That overly simplified example assumes equal importance to all parts and equal degradation. When you add unequal importance and differing amounts of damage, things get messy. When you extend this to the realm of economics things get more nebulous. If a wholesaler is working on a profit level of 1-2% of sales, how many systems can they suffer working at 99% (or 97%, or 95%, or 90%, or 80%) instead of 100% before they operate at a loss, and how long can they withstand operating at a loss before they go bankrupt? How truely variable are their variable costs and how fixed are their fixed costs?

There are no easy answers when you combine question #1 and #2 together.

For some interesting reading try Dick Mills' S-Curves at http://www.albany.net/~dmills/scurves.htm for some interesting pictures with some very clever comments.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 14, 1999.

Hmmmm

Sounds like all we have to do is re-boot the world. Problem solved.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 14, 1999.

Hi David,

you are beginning to see the connections. Now not *all* of the connections in this country or in Western Europe will fail, nor will all that do fail, fail simultaneously.

Indeed in a worst case situation in a major urban area, the scenario you suggest may well happen. This will especially be true if it happens, not on 01/01/00 but on about 01/20/00 or later, when most of the initial resources of emergency support organizations may well have already been deployed elsewhere. For the people it happens to, that is going to be a really rough time indeed. As I said, that's possible in some areas, but it wont neccessarily be that bad across the board. too many variables to predict exactly what will happen where....

From a production perspective, to use your example of the plastic wrap - since any company management that doesn't have it's collective head firmly planted in the sand has by now realized that there will be problems at the rollover and will be accumulating advanced inventory in order to attempt to compensate for possible supply problems. The issue here then, is whether or not that company could find a work around or an alternate supplier of plastic wrap, before they run out of their accumulated inventory. Again this is impossible to predict one way or the other, since we don't know who is still going to be functional after the roll over and who isn't.

I guess what I'm saying is that while it's good to prepare for a worst case scenario, if possible, it's not good to fixate on it as the only possibility, since that may not be what happens where you are. I'd suggest preparing for the worst, but doing so in a way that leaves you some flexibility to respond - plan how you'd deal with a '10', but also plan how you'd deal with an '8', a '6' and a '4'. Not only will this help you get a better understanding of your alternatives, but you'll also have a better grasp of why some folks react the way they do, if it turns out to be an '8', and they were preparing for a '3'....

just my 2 cents' worth,

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 14, 1999.

Re water and big cities: Los Angeles and environs gets a major portion, at least, of its water via the "California Aqueduct". For the geographically challenged, Los Angeles is in southern California. The water comes from northern California. The aqueduct is like a river, open air, hundreds of miles long. Very susceptible to disruption; I'm amazed it hasn't already happened. Sabotage, earthquake, nukes, chemical/biological attack... Highways run along and over it all along its length. There are constantly found bodies and crashed or abandoned cars in it.

Anyway, without that piped in water, LA will be in a heap of hurt. No way enough water can be trucked in to maintain the population, even if they do the mickey mouse bit of not watering lawns or even outright rationing and restrictions. LA is a desert. No significant rain for months at a time. (And, BTW to those that have planted gardens for Y2K prep in the area -- does the word "shrivel" have a meaning?)

Other major areas, even though they are in rainy climates, have water supplies of various degrees of fragility -- pumping stations requiring power, treatment facilities requiring chemicals and power, etc.

Call me compartmentalized, but #1 is water, #2 is food, and #3 is shelter.

-- A (A@AisA.com), May 14, 1999.

Right on the money AisA... for what it's worth I think you've described problems here in LA very well. Any else thinking carrying capacity?

David, we think alike. Do what Arlin says and try not to fixate on the worst case. I know it's tough once you see that big picture but you'll get over it. Prepare as best as you can and be ready to move quickly if you need to.

I always hear worries about whether or not the grid will stay up. It doesn't really matter if your local provider has their billing records scrambled and they shut you off for "lack of payment". It doesn't really matter if the power stays on and you lose your job because the company you work for is sued into bankruptcy over y2k related issues or not. What if there is an extended banking holiday and you can't get money to purchase food?

Preps are good for a whole lot of reasons and they may be necessary regardless of if the worst of worst case scenarios occurs or not. Preps are just prudent.

Mike =======================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 14, 1999.