A chance to make changes

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

I would like to say that I think this is a great idea and I look forward to participating on this forum.

In asking people to imagine putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, it will inevitably elicit responses based on their ideas about our current civilization. Those who are happy with the status quo will respond with a plan to literally put back each piece exactly as it was before, and as quickly as possible, in order to return to the "good life" they once had.

While those who are critics and currently are working for changes of various kinds, will see this as an opportunity, as many already have, to make fundamental changes and create a Humpty Dumpty with some revisions or complete replacement.

Another factor I have considered is the impact of the failures on the survivors and the reactions that will follow. You have already hinted at this in your article on the changes this will bring to the "Wild West" of programming. However, if failures are worse, and people are stranded, nearly killed, by power failures or supply lines that collapse, perhaps they will emerge completely unwilling to rebuild a system responsible for y2k. They may at least try to keep power and food local and within their oversight at least, or even create individual systems for each home. I would not admit to being a programmer until the dust settles! (my son is in college to be a programmer and my husband works in communications)

I admit to having my own gripes about our current situation and I would like to throw out a few suggestions.

If I had a chance to infuence the rebuilding of this world, I would hope that we could reorganize the system of countries and states. If things are serious, the local arenas will be where most people are focused anyway. If we are living off the grid perhaps we will become aware of our responsibility to the land. It would be great if we created bioregions. We may be able to build sustainability, alternative energy systems, organic farms, locally made products and other environmental improvements through our particular region.

At first there might be widespread chaos and destruction where people do what ever they must to survive. But when the survivors emerge, they will gather around the resources, and begin to put together small communities. If some of these people had the knowledge to pass on to the others about how to live without polluting, perhaps we would not have to repeat these mistakes.

In the mild scenario, there is somewhat less chance of this. The more our infrastructure remains intact, the less opportunity for change there would be. We went through the Great Depression, and the gas crisis in the 70's and as soon as normal times returned, everyone just forgot about it.

The skills and information I have been trying to gather are in alternative health, organic gardening, and ecology. I am sure that others have their favorite things they hope to see in the next world. I am looking forward to hearing them. Of course, the reality will unfold unlike anything we could plan for. But if we have given it some thought and gathered some good books, tools, and supplies, we might just get the chance to put it to use in some way.

In my opinion, y2k is going to be a 6 - 9, with some chance of 10 through nuclear or other disasters. But I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong, since I am living in Southern California on the bullseye. I have been very anxious to focus on post y2k and get away from the current waiting game. I agree that it is beyond time to argue with anyone. So maybe we can put this waiting to some productive use!

Lora

-- Lora Ereshan (artemis45@hotmail.com), August 06, 1999

Answers

I agree that a serious Y2K situation will encourage the voters to "throw the bums out" -- but where will they find some new bums to put into government? If the Y2K problem had been caused by JUST the Democrats, or JUST the Republicans, then we could replace the Democratic bums with the Republican bums, or vice versa.

One of my concerns is that we're likely to see a lot of today's politicians who have been utterly silent (if not AWOL) with regard to Y2K suddenly beginning to tell us, in early 2000, that they really have been terribly concerned about it all along. I think we need to continue asking them for copies of speeches they gave on the subject in 1997-99, and for copies of legislation they introd

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 06, 1999.


While the situation allows us the possibility of making changes, it also forces us to determine exactly what those changes will be... Do we want more localized control, or a one world government? Do we want democracy (with it's attendent problems) or dictatorship?

We might think about making personal responsibility, education (especially with regard to consequences), government with substantial local control, and a good democratic process as some priorities.

Government may change, if only because I suspect that there will be a movement to "throw the bums out!"

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 06, 1999.


The problem is, of course, that we can't all agree on what the "changes" need to be.

The saying, "The sheep all agree to be vegetarian, but the wolf is of a different opinion," sorta sums it up for me. Ultimately, we can dream our dreams of post-rollover utopia (however we conceive it), but unless EVERYBODY has the same dream, it doesn't happen.

In history, we find that each major social change had a series of "precursor" incidents and struggling alternate systems. At the birth of Christianity, for instance, a number of Messiah-types were running around the Middle East, each with a different philosophy and band of followers -- we look back and see that during the Roman breakdown, only one major thread held on and survived. Now, this is obviously a vast simplification, but the point remains:

The seeds of the New Direction are already here. If we look around carefully, we can see the various competing world views (ecocentric, patriotic, militaristic, communal, etc etc etc), all struggling to gain adherents. Which ones survive a possible y2k breakdown? Which ones continue to thrive afterwards?

That's the question. That's the problem.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 06, 1999.


Ed,

The answer is so Close.

Read the Anti-Federalist Papers!!!!

If you are not a Libertarian, you will only understand the true foundation of the Countries Bill of Rights after reading.

We are only what we are now through a belief in the individual on a Political level. A return to these basic concepts are what is at the core of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!" "That we believe these truths to be self evident" are ANTI-FEDERALIST tones that express themselves in a Libertarian fashion.

You will find the Country is ripe for it.

Contact me if you have any questions!!!!

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), August 06, 1999.


Whoops! Everyone posting on this has either not yet read Ishmael, or has forgotten it. You too, Ed. "man belongs to the Earth, not the Earth belongs to man. If we don't start on the right foundation it won't matter what political system or whose philosophy, or whose religion we follow. And for those of us still obsessed with politics and freedom...there is no freedom when there are no natural resources and too many people. Thats why everyone is crying about their loss of freedom on all the forums. I think the last open land is being burned up in Indonesia and Brazil as I write.

-- Sand Mueller (smueller@azalea.net), August 06, 1999.


Sand...I think you hit it on the head. Too little natural resources and too many people. If y2k were to kill off about 1/2 of the earth's population, there might be a chance for some of these "finer" ideas. But if y2k is anywhere above a 7, most of us will not live long enuff to see these things happen/not happen. Our remaining lifetime, if we are lucky/unlucky enuff to be a survivor, will be spent in just trying to provide the basics of life. Food, warmth, shelter. We will soon learn to raise food, barter, make do, rob old cars for parts, crank up the remaining stills, forage for wild stuff and be a friend and neighbor once more.

Taz...who can dream while she hoes that corn.

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), August 06, 1999.


"The seeds of the New Direction are already here. If we look around carefully, we can see the various competing world views (ecocentric, patriotic, militaristic, communal, etc etc etc), all struggling to gain adherents. Which ones survive a possible y2k breakdown? Which ones continue to thrive afterwards?

That's the question. That's the problem.

Anita Evangelista "

If there is a serious breakdown, the following will survive:

The best organised

The best armed

The most ideologically committed (religious)

The most ruthless

Not pleasant, but real.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 06, 1999.


All this Jeffersonian stuff sounds great. Most of it requires a significant reduction in the world population to be practical however. Are we really HOPING that billions of OTHER people die? Talking the talk is easy. It may only be possible to achive an exception to the rule in an individual way, as the chicken farmer has done. And maybe that is enough for the chicken farmer.

How many of us are going to join the chicken farmer now and how many of us are going to wait for us to change the world first?

-- MarsBar (dflet@succeed.net), August 06, 1999.


MarsBar,

Opponents of the NWO would have you believe the NWO supports just that. Reducing the population. If not through an unfeasable Nuclear War then through a feasable Y2K unpreparedness scenario. Now we can loose the Third World, China, and India and some others and have more natural resources for the "society" to thrive in.

How's that make you feel? Looks plausible, doesn't it?

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), August 06, 1999.


Anita and Sand,

I agree with your comments. As it is, we are a globe of vast numbers of people competing for resources and space with devastating effects on the plants, animals and each other. We are also competing in the world of ideas to a greater extent than ever before. Increased communications and now the internet has created a splintering into thousands of subcultures of shared experiences, tastes, and beliefs.

As it is, we have already fated ourselves to die in vast numbers whether we wish for it or not, when the atmosphere, water, pollution, lack of food, or collapse of our too complex and fragile systems brings us to the end that we have created. Although we each have participated, along with countless ancestors, to this moment, as individuals we live with such a limited ability to understand or see how what we do contributes. This is what y2k has shown us, there are so many points of vulnerability in our systems, yet when they were built, it seemed the logical thing to do for each company or individual involved.

When the collapse does come, a whole new set of circumstances will determine what opportunities there are for us to form groups. Will it make sense in this new world to be Democrat or Republican? I think only to the extent that the world does not change that much. What will be the issues of the next era?

I agree with Taz in that if it reaches a certain level, it will take us many years perhaps to reach a point where daily life can include more than survival concerns. For instance, if the grid stays down this would surely collapse government totally. In the case that we have to reinvent the infrastructure and manufacturing from what ever is left, how the small groups choose to lay the foundation will have a great deal of impact on what kind of society evolves from it.

Will the various regions that form after 20 years still consider themselves part of the United States? After all, much of the US has known that California is actually another planet and has never belonged. ;) And northern California and Arizona will get the chance to break with Southern California after years of having their water stolen. (I was born and raised in s. CA, but even I can see the arrogance of building golf courses and water rides in the middle of the desert) Who knows what other injustices will be addressed given the leveling effect of y2k? These things may become irrelevant, or not.

Thanks for all your thought provoking ideas. I intend to follow up on some of the recommended reading.

Lora

-- Lora Ereshan (artemis45@hotmail.com), August 06, 1999.



Sometimes it is easier to define what we DON'T want... Personally, I don't want:

People recieving public benefits having the right to vote for politicians who can vote them more benefits.

An unarmed population.

Our species confined to this planet.

To drop to a pre technological level as a goal.

A continuation of the mad rush to ???? we have seen this century.

Some things I would LIKE to see:

The franchise limited in some way that required some accomplishment, some contribution, SOMETHING that shows that the voter has some sense of responsibility or at least the intelligence to pound sand without supervision.

In our country, a militia/military more along the Swiss lines. I realize that the two situations are VERY different, but maybe a melding of philosophies?

Each person on the planet to be able to rise to a level that suits their talents and abilities.

Education based on teaching thinking rather than passivity.

I'd like to see a world where a woman may go to a park or a store without fear. Where children may play without danger. Where criminals are not allowed to prey repeatedly on the law abiding population. Where we could recognize that those who seek public office are probably the least fit to hold it.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 06, 1999.


The opportunity for change that might be created through the breakdown in the degree of control over processes through computer technology is fascinating.

[Unfortunately, it is a given that the population level now supported by the increased efficiency, physical power and intelligence afforded us by our modern technology are dependent upon its continuance. Faced with a technological collapse of only a few weeks, areas more dependent upon sophisticated technology, (large cities - particularly in the north,) will be the most likely to face casualties. Perhaps this will give us future pause as to the wisdom of such dependency.] During the past decade, I have watched as "geek" scientists created models of the natural processes of local rivers in order to manage their flows, sedimentation, temperature, chemistry, etc. Decisions on land management practices are henceforth to be based on the impacts projected by manipulating inputs to the model and analyzing the outputs produced on the watershed scale.

The personal experience and intuition of those who live and work on the land, (and who's parents and grandparents back for generations lived and worked on the land,) is totally discounted as "unscientific." Assumptions can be developed in the lab and "adjusted" so that the data calibrates with the model. Everything to be considered must be reduced to some measureable element of data so it can be plugged into the machine and produce the expected "product." There is no flexibility in the decree of the machine. Elements unaccounted for in the model simply do not exist. We do not argue or make deals with the machine. There is no relationship with the machine. The scientists that hide behind the machine never have to actually see the river or face the people who are affected by the machine's decison.

Has modern society become an imitation of life through its use of technology? Have human relationships and the "connectedness" of human beings, one to another, become a casualty of our technological world? Have we lost the human identification with and dependency upon the family/tribal group that makes us "human?"

The internet has fostered the idea of "communities" of people of like interests and beliefs, where time and spacial separation is almost irrelevant. Are we losing the context and risk of physical communication and contact that makes us human and satisfies basic human needs? Have our bodies become irrelevant? Is only that part of us that can be reduced to data input important? Has technology dehumanized us?

I work on a computer almost all day. Maybe this is not a good thing. For those of us not so terribly dependent upon technology for our basic needs, perhaps a technological breakdown will provide the opportunity to re-examine interpersonal human relationships and communication.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 09, 1999.


From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

I've written at a thread on "Getting Back to Normal" about the importance of the internet, problems with current news media, and government censorship.

I'd like to also share this tidbit:

There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order and only lukewarm defenders in all those who profit by the new order. This lukewarmness arises partly from the fear of their adversaries, who have law in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have actual experience of it. -- Machiavelli, The Prince (1513)

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 14, 1999.


I forget the name of the author but since I had the quote on my refrigerator in the microbioloby lab I remember the quote:

"The greatness of mankind's technical accomplishments is exceded only by his stupidity in their use".

It is not computers or programmers or technology which we can blame. A 20% failure rate will cause a catastrophe. That means that more than 80% of the technology will still work....we just might decide to use it differently the next time we hit the "start" button.

-- Thom Gilligan (thomgill@eznet.net), September 17, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ