The pioneering spirit of old seems to continue, though expressed in different activities than in the past. There is less interest, skill, and capacity to chop wood and haul water, but there seems no lack in interest to take on economic risks in new technologies and business. The "gold rush" of the Internet and the capitalization of online companies in America is one example. We may not be rugged individuals like the early settlers, trail blazers, and mountain men, but there are quite a few of us who do not shy away from taking adventursome risks in our careers and investments.

Can we overcome whatever challenges that come from the Y2K technology problem? I have no doubt that some will capitalize on opportunities that will be found in the aftermath. Whether or not the profitability of such opportunities has limited or widening circles of productive impact may be a function of whether or not we take our lessons from the old days or the last days. I wonder if there would be far more individuals seeking self-sufficiency and privacy than those who seek to work with others and build things of widening socio-economic merit.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 28, 1999

Answers

I have to confess that I wasn't planning on cooperatively rebuilding the infrastructure necessary to enable telemarketers to find me ever again. But I don't like hauling water by hand either...

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), August 28, 1999.

I think that a lot of people who are "preparing for survival" do so because they want to be ready to rebuild.

I live near enough to a lake that I could theoretically carry back a bit of drinking water...unless the winter is bad enough to freeze the lake. But I invested about $400 in a new cast iron hand pump which I spent a day mounting on an old dug well on our property. In this drought year, it actually went dry, but I think it will be good throughout most years. The water is really sweet and cool when working on a hot summer day, and the well is just 20 yards from our vegetable garden.

Why did I put in the well?

1. It allows me not to be "distracted" by "finding" reliable drinking water if our house well is not functioning.

2. It allows me to be a source of small amounts of fresh water to a few direct neighbors.

3. It may allow me to attract people to work in my garden with me if needed...fresh, cool water breaks as often as needed.

4. It is a beautiful addition to my land, a functional sculpture reminding me of days when people used to dig wells by hand and haul water in buckets.

Folks, we have tasted the fruits of cooperation, the fruits of modern science applied to our material needs. We have harnessed combustion engine power, nuclear power, computer power, medical miracles, food hygene. We have tasted Jazz music and Symphony Orchestras. No matter how "bad" y2k is, the survivors will try to return to what we have today (cooperation). It may be a long time before Ford and Chrysler are cranking out massive numbers of autos which we lease or buy with 1% financing, but we will want to enjoy security again. We will want to enjoy beauty.

Seemingly unrelated, but nontheless related: There is a plant called Echinecea which was used by indians for treating acute fevers (colds, flus, skin infections). I have used tinctures of Echinecea for almost 15 years to treat my own colds and flus. In the last 5 or so years, there has been a more widespread acceptance in the mainstream public. The plant also has beautiful flowers which are a bit like a daisy and a bit like a cosmos. They are perennial, flowering better every year. It takes about 5 years for the roots to mature enough to use as a medicine. I spoke recently to a man who prepares herbal tintures who told me that there has been a large amount of this plant planted in the last years, so he expects a "glut". Now, I would bet that about 75% of the times a doctor prescribes an "antibiotic", it would actually be just fine to prescribe Echinecea. If y2k causes the the international chemical and pharmaceutical industry to suffer, we could experience shortages of antibiotics. Resourceful doctors may then be compelled to try out herbs.

Shortages of medicines could help to rekindle interest in herbal medicine.

Shortages of gasoline could rekindle interest in communities which are built to be managed by bicycle and by foot.

Shortages of food could rekindle the interest in the "hobby" of organic gardening.

Shortages of fuel oil and electricity could rekindle the interest in solar water and electric.

Shortages of financial capital could rekindle interest in small scale businesses and technologies (built with scraps and bubble gum).

Shortages in Governmental services could rekindle the spirit of hometown politics and community engagement.

Sorry to keep this post long, but I just have to close with this little story:

I was at a music festival recently and I met a real interesting fellow. He was a classic cotton-fabric, tie-dye hippie type. He lived in a Rickshaw. In the last 7 years, he had constructed 22 of these vehicles (which I assume he sold or gave away). He said he always starts with an old wheelchair (needs real sturdy wheels). Then working with scrap aluminum bars and a couple dozen bicycle wheels, all sorts of scrap twine and lots of old colorful clothing, he builds a rickshaw which looks like a honeycomb of interlocking "dream weavers". Every surface of metal is "softened" by wrapping it with torn materials. He nevers pays a penny for anything he uses to build it. His carts are of course whimsical, but they are also beautiful.

Day by day, he lives. He transforms our junk in to a mobile treasure which he can run down the road with. When he gets tired of a region, he dusts off his feet and lands somewhere else and builds again. Perhaps he did not consider hinmself an expert when he built the first one. I consider himself and expert now.

In a similar way, we will all learn to take some old scraps, the knowledge we had, the knowledge we create, and build something new. The first time we will not be experts. The experts of the future will differ from the experts of the past.

Considering that many people may feel quite devastated by all of it, I think that beauty and art will become more valuable to us again. Jesus and other prophets knew that fasting and prayer are able to awaken the enlightened mind. So what mind can y2k awaken?

Thom

-- Thom Gilligan (thomgill@eznet.net), August 28, 1999.

Thom - once I had all my veggy seeds stowed away, I bought some rose bushes and other perrenials. The soul also needs nourishment of beauty and delight.

It is the nature of many to embellish upon the mundane in some manner. I think of the craft of weaving, which is one I used to enjoy. It is so simple and monotonous to lift and lower the heddles. However, the sequence of lifting the levers can create an intricate pattern in the warp and woof. To me, it is like visual music. Once we get the mechanics of the skill down (craft), it will be our nature to vary the pattern (art.)

I told my son that I think I shall miss symphonies the most. He reminded me that he had a single CD player that was battery operated and that I have a solar battery charger!

"If I had two loaves of bread, I'd sell one and buy flowers."

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 29, 1999.

Trust : The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity

by Francis Fukuyama

From Booklist , August 19, 1995: Fukuyama's first effort at global punditry, The End of History and the Last Man (1992), was an international best-seller; his new book is a blueprint for success in this "posthistorical" world. Neoclassical economics, Fukuyama maintains, is 80 percent correct but ignores the role of social capital ("reciprocity, moral obligation, duty toward community, and trust" ) in facilitating the "stability and prosperity of postindustrial societies." High-trust societies like Japan, Germany, and (in spite of our individualism) the U.S. develop the kind of flexible organizations that the global economy demands far more easily than do low-trust societies or "familistic" nations like China, France, Italy, and South Korea. Fukuyama assesses the success and failure of various social structures, arguing that the U.S. needs to overcome its "Crisis of Trust" : "American liberals need to understand that they cannot take organic cohesion of American society for granted. . . American conservatives, for their part, have to understand that before they cut back the role of the state in society, they should have some idea about how to regenerate civil society and find alternative ways of taking care of its weaker members."

My thoughts:

From one perspective, trust seems be declining in the U.S. at every level: family, community, and state. Often, family members do not trust each other in their commitments for the common good of the family over personal satisfaction, friends and neighbors eye each other suspiciously, and individuals do not feel best represented by their representatives nor protected and treated adequately by laws.

If Y2K is more severe than a 3 day storm, will the American people be so wary of government, utilities, and other major service providers, that severe downturns in cooperation and the prosperity that comes of cooperation will be realized. Will neighbors take new interest in each other? Can nuclear families be reconstituted? Will the extended family come together cooperatively under one roof and endure member's predilection for individualistic behavior patterns and self-interest?

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 29, 1999.

Marsh,

My girlfriend has been patient with me, but I have tested her patience on some of our preparations. One day, I came home from the Caswell Massey boutique with two giant bags filled with boxes of luxurious perfumed soap (gardenia, lilly, etcetera). You see C&M had redesigned the boxes and they had a clearance sale on the soap packaged in old boxes, so I picked up several dozen for a buck fifty each-- confident that these would fetch more than a few bucks (or something better) in a post Y2K world. I showed her your post, today, and another on the other forum as example that I might be right on about perfumed soap. She's still not totally convinced, but at least she's considering to stop using it and save a few boxes for that imaginary post-Y2K black market. [grin]

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 29, 1999.

Stan - Did you see "Waking Ned Divine?" Your soaps remind me of the problem encountered by the hog farmer in courting a sweetheart. Aromatic soaps may be worth gold someday - lol

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 29, 1999.

Marsh,

I haven't seen Ned Divine yet. But I plan to rent the video soon. I had forgotten that it is available in the video store.

Thom,

I wonder if a cooperation and trust that arises mostly from need and want as opposed to virtues and character will be more problematic than the apparent mixture that makes up today's cooperation and trust. Capitalism without an ethic may not be so pretty. What do you think?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 30, 1999.

In answer to the topic question, I would hopefully answer:

Adaptable, caring, moral people...(for the most part). We are willing to adapt to difficult situations, caring for our family. And if we aren't moral...there isn't much hope.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 30, 1999.

I work with people in situations of conflict regarding control over use of limited natural resources and I imagine there will be conflict over these life-sustaining resources even after y2k. "Moral," "ethical" and "right" are relative.

Take water. The tribes have an aboriginal claim, secured in treaty, for sufficient water to maintain subsistence fisheries. The ranchers and farmers have a legal property interest in the use of specific waters dating back to the 1850s. Those who "speak for the environment" have voted it a statutory right, asserting instream flow rights through public trust for a "healthy ecosystem." Residents of municipalities in large arid areas are jockying for another legal interest based on "equitable apportionment," negating longstanding priorities, justified by highest and best economic use.

All interests require water to sustain life - water for fish for the dinner table; water for crops and livestock in order to make a living by feeding others; water essential to habitat maintenance and watershed processes; and water for drinking and household use. There is not enough water to go around. Equal distribution will fail to satisfy life requirements for all groups. So....which group comes first? How is the priority decided - Wealth? Force? Majority sentiment? Legal right? Who wins and who loses? Is there a real alternative to competition?

Will people cooperate in a competitive scenario where there are going to be winners and losers? Will the current "haves" cooperate with the "have-nots?" (Is non-cooperativeness a strategy?) Will people trust when there are winners and losers in the outcome? Will people compromise if: (1) they believe they are right; (2) will lose more by compromising than standing firm; (3) are expected to give up their interest inequitably with the others.

Are people polarized and forced into identity with a defineable interest group in a competitive scenario? Do morality and ethics stop outside the group? Are their universal rules of "fair play"?

It may be that y2k only exacerbates existing conflicts. Unless problem solving partnerships (like the Quincy Library Group) are firmly in place prior to the rollover, sense of fair play, acceptable strategies and institutions of peacefull and orderly adjudication may be altered. How they are altered will define us.

Idealist that I am,

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 31, 1999.