Some one mentioned this in a thread a few days ago.

I've been preparing for the past 6 months. I've always been worried about the state of the world and consider myself what you would call a GI. My core concern is that my "negative" view of our condition on Earth in this age has influenced my perspective to a point of false-reality and that all the talk on this site is a "group think" of sorts.

In my logic, I have come to similar conclusions as many of you. But what if we could be underestimating the resilience of the human technological system. I consider technology a very rigid mechanism, extremely "aliquid" and therefore unresilient to a y2k quake; it's a very thin and flimsy card house. But what if the sheer number of interconnections makes the human technological system "liquid" more resilient than expected to instabilities even of the y2k magnitude.

This is my concern. Much of my friends and family believe I'm paranoid for being concerned, so I need some feedback, either way, on this idea.

Have we group thought ourselves and overlooked possible unrecognized resilience?

-- wilderness (76651.3647@compuserve.com), November 21, 1999

Answers

No. And cleaning out the gene pool will be a good thing.

-- goldbug (goldbug@mint.com), November 21, 1999.

wilderness, we've thought about your point a lot, and put some hope there. Cross-pollution of all those points with bad data is a possibility too. We think there *is* a lot of resiliency both in technology and the human spirit. The problem is the humanimal tendency to opportunistically act out during mayhem.

To us the whole severity depends on HOW IN TUNE PPL ARE WITH GOD.
Lately that aspect doesn't look too rosy :-)

So it comes down to this:

How fast can the population turn itself around spiritually on a dime?

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 21, 1999.

Modern technology is a tremendous gift from God. Now if only people would learn to use it properly, for good.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 21, 1999.

YES: I do think there is a "group think" influence. A flip-flop of doom vs not so bad moves with the wind of posts.

Remember: Something could change your attitude overnight, such as serious problems at rollover. At that point, you have joined the "group think" of the masses!

When the music stops - you could be left without a chair (as in musical chairs). Keep prepping, be as ready as possible. Let the cards land where they fall.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best and enjoy the clichis!

41 days till ignorance is bliss will be obsolete!

-- dw (y2k@outhere.com), November 21, 1999.

wilderness,

I think you ask a good question. My initial thoughts on this is this: if you haven't done your own research, your own thinking, and come to your own conclusions, you may be moving with a group. Now that's not to say that there aren't intelligent, independent-minded members of the so-called group you are moving with (doomers or pollies). You may not have had time and resources to do exhuastive research, thinking, conclusion-making about Y2K. The fact is that most people haven't made the time to give Y2K a second thought.

The question you might now ask yourself is this: have you unquestioningly dug yourself into an entrenched authoritative position (doomer or polly) without serious consideration of the character of those whose opinions are your frame of reference?

If you really haven't considered the character of these opinion-shapers, that is *group think*. And group think is something to avoid-- generally speaking.

Sincerely,
Stan Faryna

Got 14 days of preps? If not, get started now. Click here.

Click here and check out the TB2000 preparation forum.

A rational explanation for making Y2K preparations

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001R UO

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 21, 1999.

I do not hold my opinions due to this forum. I enjoy being among people who understand my POV, but that is not the origin of what I think.

To address your other point--i.e., resliency of systems--you might try to find a paper online about natural accidents. The author, a Ph.D. candidate, indicates that the survivability of systems in crisis depends on the "tightness" of the system and the existence of workarounds. I'm paraphrasing. Maybe someone can point you to that thesis.

At any rate, we don't know how tight this system is bound or how workarounds have been made available. Therefore, only time will tell. WE DO NOT KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop the freaking speculation. Prepare if you're preparing as insurance, and then stand out of the way.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 21, 1999.

Wilderness,

Hello! "But what if the sheer number of interconnections makes the human technological system "liquid" more resilient than expected to instabilities even of the y2k magnitude." That's an excellent question!

I think the closest we'll ever get is that we won't know until it happens. There are probably more than a few redundant systems, or systems that have the capability for multiple uses. This is definitely in our favor. However, there are a few unknowns:

* The criticalness of the systems that might be affected; * Quality of pre-Y2K fixes; * Number of glitches at the same time. (This might delay other systems. It won't "kill" us, but it'll make more of a mess for a while.); * Workability of contingency plans; etc...

Some of us doomers don't think it's the end of the world - just that society is going to be a bit different for a while. Y2K might cause us to make some adjustments to our personal lives (like the Great Depression) until we've fixed all the glitches, IMHO.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 21, 1999.

Wilderness commented:

"". But what if the sheer number of interconnections makes the human technological system "liquid" more resilient than expected to instabilities even of the y2k magnitude.""

According to the Way essay this interconnectedness is Our downfall, due to the fact that no instruments are available to test the interconnectedness between entities effectively. Hence his (Ways) segment on the "Independence fallacy".

Please understand I am not even close to being a programmer, but reading the Dale Way essay made it perfectly clear that the immensity and the interconnectedness of the System of systems was our greatest problem.

-- db (dciinc@aol.com), November 21, 1999.

Mara,

It's good to continue the speculation. Although I'm not frequent to this site, I have done much research. Those who are new to this sight, might wish to have further debate on the issue. That is what this place is about, right? Resilience of the system is an important discussion topic. We must know what to tell our kids in the future. They will want to know why and we must have a story for them. To many have forgotten The Tower of Babel.

I expect a bell curve exists on the scale. Once we float past a 3 on the scale, we then accelerate towards the 10. If the system is as fragile as I expect the nature of complex aliquid technology to be, then a 10 is likely. And within any doomer senario I do expect Spring to arrive after Winter.

Springtime is nice after a long winters nap.

-- wilderness (76651.3647@compuserve.com), November 21, 1999.

db,

In ecology, interconnectivity is resilience. The better [more truthfully or accurately] an ecosystem can communicate with itself, i.e. a strong food web or a healthy water cycle, the more resilient it has to environmental disasters. Ecosystems with high "process diversity" have high degrees of resilience. So, my line of non-10 thinking lies in the idea that the sheer numbers of communication routes or contingency plans may hold the tower together. On the other hand, Way has a point that the interconnectivity of unchangeable [aliquid] processes will cause it to crash. Mara is right it seems, we just don't know the extent of workarounds or contingency plans. My hunch is they are far to few and far between. I'll continue preparing and trying to convince my family.

-- wilderness (76651.3647@compuserve.com), November 21, 1999.

Wlderness,

you said, "Those who are new to this sight, might wish to have further debate on the issue. That is what this place is about, right? Resilience of the system is an important discussion topic."

For the authoritative answer as to what this place is about, if you click on About at the top of the page, you will find: This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people."

Your question is interesting, which is probably why it has been debated/discussed so many times in the history of the 250,000 messages posted to this forum. If you haven't yet found the archives, that is an invaluable expedition. I think if you explore the "Awareness" category, you will find hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on this very subject you raise!

However, I would feel remiss if I did not say that, with only 40 days remaining for those you mention who are new to this sight to prepare for possible disruptions, this discussion/debate might be as helpful to them as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" In other words, to continue the speculation at the 11th hour could be a potentially dangerous distraction. I honestly do not mean to offend you with this observation, but the time for philosophical speculation is past. I would look forward to the forum engaging in a philosophical autopsy of sorts if we are so lucky as to have Y2K be a bump in the road.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), November 21, 1999.