With respect to Tom Barnett, Y2K scenario spinner without parallel, here's the deal.

Please quit asking him, "Where should we point the cameras?" You can figure that out on your own.

It's embarassing. You clearly haven't understood his work. You did at least read it, right? No, don't answer that, It's painfully obvious you haven't seen his power point presentation. His presentation is not your ordinary run-of-the-muck presentation, this man dances with his slides! Not only is this guy really smart , he can explain explain the stuff. (At least as good as Bill Nye the Science Guy.)

Hello, hello?!?!?! This guy's presence can sell advertising...

Critt

"It's been an amazing 2 days. Will follow up in a few days with a Perrow/Barnett comparison."

-- Critt on the road in DC (critt@critt.com), November 10, 1999

Answers

I'm sorry for appearing nieve, but what is going on here?

-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), November 10, 1999.

First time I went to a briefing when the crowd stayed for the credits!! Two hours without a pause and I only saw one person starting to nod off.

-- Drac (Itisdifferentthistime@dowswansong.com), November 10, 1999.

Who the hell is Tom Barnett and why should we care?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), November 10, 1999.

Critt is talking about the Conference in Washington.

GW Conference Agenda for 11/10, 11, 12, 19, & 23 (in DC)

Looking forward to a full report, that folks can understand Critt :o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 10, 1999.

Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett is director of the U.S. Naval War College Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project. This is the Project's latest Report.

See also this thread.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 10, 1999.

Um, Dr. Barnett isn't even listed as being part of the GW conference. What did I miss?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), November 10, 1999.

Whoa! Back the truck up...

Barnett is not part of the GW Conference.

I caught his briefing (along with Drac and a few other folks I recognized) at The Arlington Institute Wednesday afternoon.



-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), November 11, 1999.

Thomas,

If you've got time, walk over to Chick Perrow's office and see if he has a copy of his new release of Normal Accidents. Read the Afterward and the Postscript. Then, read enough to understand the attributes of a non-linear system and coupling as he describes those concepts. The book is chocked full of examples. You want to get good enough so you can look around and say, "Hey, that's a non-linear system. And it's tightly coupled. Uh-oh!". Barnett simply says in his power point presentation, "Shit Happens."

Once you understand system types (linear/non-linear) and coupling (loose/tight)you can go right to Barnett's Cosmic Conclusions. But, you'll probably want to study the whole thing.

Lars,

You'll have to decide for yourself.

The reason I care what Barnett says is that people all over the world (Everybody say, "Thank you, Internet".), people who make decisions that impact the quality of my life listen to this man. Then they react, they create new ideas, they connect with other people.

This could be a good thing, or not so good a thing. The problem I'm wrestling with right now is that the report's conclusion feels a bit too exclusive. It sounds like a lot of folks are in a perceived position of being left out, a winners and losers kind of deal.

Perrow's work is about inclusiveness. Everybody is connected. Proximity to a problem is how a person gets tagged "victim".

I'm road weary, it's 2:30am. I'll take a few days and see if I can come up with something more cogent.

Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (critt@critt.com), November 11, 1999.

Critt,

Are you referring to something like collateral damage assesments?

As far as media being interested in 'where to point the cameras', that is what they do in these situations. Sorry to sound so cynical this early in the morning & this late in the game. Take care of yourself, I literally worried myself sick over these concerns last year. We don't have the luxury of recuperation time any longer.

Be well,

-- flora (***@__._), November 11, 1999.

Rest well, Critt.

THEN report.

;-D

Thanks!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 11, 1999.

"Conclusion #4--Y2K Will Demonstrate the Price of Secrecy and the Promise of Transparency

Those who are more open and transparent and share information more freely will do better with Y2K than those who hoard information, throw up firewalls, and refuse outside help. Secrecy will backfire in almost all instances, leading to misperceptions and harmful, stupidly self-fulfilling actions. Governments must be as open with their populations as possible, or suffer serious political backlashes if and when Y2K proves more significant for their countries than they had previously let on.

People's fears about "invisible technology" will either be conquered or fed by how Y2K unfolds. This is a pivotal moment in human history: the first time Information Technology has threatened to bite back in a systematic way. In a very Nietzschean manner, Y2K will either "kill" us or make us stronger, and the balance of secrecy versus transparency will decide much, if not all, of that outcome."

Well well well. Koffinsky & Klintoon just reassured us it's all peachy fine, no need to even have a little extra food around.

Can you say REVOLUTION

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 11, 1999.

Nice job Critt, even if the eyes were red from lack of sleep. I think my concerns were also around the binaryish sounding zero sumish win- lose possiblitities. The use of the globalization model and Lexus and the Olive Tree arguments also made me go Hmmm. Not because of their invalidity at the present time, but because in my mind the new rules which could appear might bear a lot more resemblence to old rules which we know have failed but which are familiar. Are simplistic answers to complex questions out of style. Methinks not. My field is human dynamics and process and my experience reinforces my belief that retro solutions are more than a fifty-fifty shot. The new rules could be eerily familiar given the right set of circumstances. My other interest is in market behavior, and for that reason, all the concensus about possibilities for profit made me say, Contrary time.

-- Drac (Itisdifferentthistime@dowswansong.com), November 11, 1999.