Sanity Check

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread

After being accused by one of my family of only looking for evidence that supports the conclusions I have already reached (ouch!), I spent an evening reading the "Y2K is a Hoax" sites. Here is my report:

My criteria:

1. Just the facts please - any an all Fortune Tellers will be discounted. Nobody knows what will happen. Anyone who claims they do is suspect. Suggesting what *might* happen is much different from saying what *will* happen.

2. How aware are these people of the critical electric power generation issue, and its ability to impact everything else. How aware are they of the "interconnectedness" issue. Are they arguing the macro or the micro.

3. Points lost for name calling, sarcasm, and general downright nastyness. These are generally a good sign that no true argument is present and an ulterior motive is.

So, given these 3 simple criteria, I set off in search of some good news.

Site One -

- No facts - Tons of name calling and sarcasm - Admission that there is a problem, but believes it can be fixed "over a couple of lunch hours". Blames many for the largest hoax in history. - No apparent awareness of electric power issue or impact.

Site Two

- Accuses Yourdin of fomenting chaos. - Uses 3 micro examples to show why Y2K isn't a problem (home mortgage payoff, IRS depreciation schedule, and one I can't remember) - Ultimate message...yes it is a problem, but well in hand and clearly overblown. - No apparent awareness of Electric Power issue, or discussion of macro problems. - No facts other than above mentioned examples. Less name calling, but plenty of sarcasm.

Site Three

- Starts you out by calling this the biggest hoax in history (common theme). - Has you take a true/false exam. Sample questions (paraphrased) 1. Computers will have problems Jan 01 2000 T/F 2. Computers have problems Today T/F 3. Computers will have problems tomorrow T/F 4. Elevators will stop working and airplanes will fall out of sky T/F 5. Powerplants will shut down T/F

you get the point. No answers given. Questions are meant to be retorical.

- No facts that I could discern. Lots of sarcasm. Accusatory language. Keeps a list of links of people who hate Gary North and Ed Yourdin, to make it easy to follow what amounts to a hate trail. - No apparent awareness of Power Generation issue beyond the quiz question mentioned above.

Site Four -

- Systems Analyst - Says problem is much smaller than thought - no facts given to support. - Says Y2K is interesting to watch - to see the hoax unfold. Admits to a small problem. - Accuses Doomsayers of blowing up bad news while ignoring good news...no example good news given. - Hopes that if any systems DO go down, it will be the phone system so he won't get paged to fix things. - Seems unaware of the phone-power-job connection.

Sorry for the lack of details - didn't think of keeping records until after my journey. Anyway, it's probably better that you explore for yourself without my bias. Much of this is night-after, so this represents my best recollection. If you've been in the trenches trying to convince people that there might be a large problem, then I would highly recommend you take a breather and read some of these sites. I came away with a couple of thoughts -

1. This forum is one of the few places I have found where reasoned, intellectual, fact-based discourse is taking place. Thank you Rick.

2. The extremists are ruling the debate (Death To ALL! A Hoax!). Reality historically suggestes somthing in between complete anhiliation and no impact whatever. The factor to keep in mind is NOBODY knows. Anyone who argues differently is just plain wrong.

3. The electric Power issue is a non-issue to most of these people. Either they are convinced there is no big problem, they don't feel the impact of a big problem would be felt elsewhere, or they haven't thought of it. All three positions are risky, to say the least.

4. Many argue that the "noise level" has to be turned up to get people to notice. I'm convinced that this often causes people to tune out, or turn off the radio altogether. Reasoned argument by sensible individuals that lays out the "Possibilities" will do more to gather converts than any doomsday senario shouted at the top of the lungs.

As for me, I'm tired of the sarcasm, the name calling, the self serving fortune telling and the arrogance of the extremists on both sides. I have a family of three young children. I don't know what is going to happen, and I'm scared. For me, best way to deal with this fear is to know the facts and prepare as God moves you to. Right now I'm praying that this country begins to understand how reliant it is on a cheap, available power source. That seems to be the kicker that turns DGI's into GI's.

Ron



-- Anonymous, November 20, 1998

Answers

Thank You Ron! I've gone to many of these same sites and come to a similiar conclusion. Most of the writers have a very large chip on their shoulder. You can almost see the sneer on the authors lips. I think part of the problem is that the very nature of the problem (it's complexity and size) allows these cranks to dismiss the entire thing. Were all stuck to some extent like the proverbial blind men on the elephant. Noone can get a handle on the true shape of this thing. These commentators have simply given up at the start and in many cases are trying to relegate a very real problem to the status of a flying saucer hoax. I find them that most of them are victims of their own overblown egos. Still they have to be read. Everyone commenting on this issue should be read. Once again thank you Ron for your timely and excellent analysis.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 1998

Ron, I have always liked debating tactics, which include studying both sides of a question. This is what prompted me from the beginning of my year 2000 research to read everything, regardless of the point of view. Your "sanity check" is something everyone should engage in!

I would like to make my own clarification of your statement that "Nobody knows". In my opinion, this is true if you are speaking of the EXTENT of the year 2000 problems (which I believe you were). It is not true if someone is speaking about whether there will be problems or not. There is enough factual information to conclude there will be problems, and there is enough factual information to conclude that the potential exists for these problems to be serious.

In any discussion of import, historically there have been proponents with opposite views. Neville Chamberlain, "We will have peace and honor in our time." after his return from negotiations with Hitler. Winston Churchill, "We will have neither peace nor honor in our time, " in response to Chamberlain. Meanwhile, F.D.R. was sorting through the facts at hand and making preparations towards mitigating the worst case.

The bottom line for me is that sorting through of facts and making preparations for the negative aspects of possible scenarios. When in doubt about an outcome, adopting an "it won't happen" thought pattern involves the most risk. I want to be on the side of least risk. I think Mr. Spock would say, "It's the logical thing to do." *wink*

-- Anonymous, November 20, 1998


There is one other reason that, however highly unlikely, could be true about the sites that call this thing a hoax. They may be one step ahead of us. They may realize themselves just how bad this thing is, and how it will get even worse if the public goes frantic before the event even takes place. They may be trying to prevent a complete disaster because they know that the people on the inside already know how bad this thing may be, and correctly assume that if all the american citizens knew about this, the country could go into a state of panic overnight. Since the only people that have to know, the people who are running the businesses and power companies, already know, these sites may be trying to keep the american citizens from causing a run on banks and other economic disasters. I doubt that this is true as much as I doubt that Clinton will admit that he is a communist tommorrow, but it has an incredibly slight chance of being true. Just trying to look at things from a completely different viewpoint. Ron is right, the sights don't have any good evidence, but they may just be trying to keep the societal structure intact as long as possible (slim chance).

-- Anonymous, November 20, 1998

If the Y2K problem is going to be as bad as this forum would indicate (if not worse), then we have two options for dealing with the (largely uniformed) public. 1. Tell them not to worry and cross your fingers. 2. Tell them everything- now -along with what to do to fix it so there will be no need to panic. There is no #2 without the last part- how to deal with this. About the panic that could ensue as soon as many people become informed....panic occurs when someone DOESN'T know what to do. Seems to me if you do no. 2, then people will be prepared and the effects of something we KNOW will happen will at least be mitigated a bit. Disseminating info about the possible repercussions of Y2K along with things to do to fix it seems to me to be the only way to go. After all, even if no one ever tells the public the s**t is going to hit the fan on New Year's Day, they will find out eventually - the hard way. Better to tell them when something can still be done.

-- Anonymous, November 22, 1998

The best sanity check I've heard so far is Rick's advice to Siouxie on another thread. Seek source info for yourself. I am a career intelligence analyst (18 years) and the first thing I learned in the business was to seek as much broad source info as possible. Narrow sourcing is incestuous and biases the resulting analysis. Most of the sceptics I've come up against are 1. uninformed, or 2. well informed on a only narrow portion of the problem. The only way to understand the potential scope of the problem is to see the interconnectedness of the various arenas that may be impacted by y2k. The electric utilities are a part; global, national, and regional economics are a part; nuclear weapons control and management are a part; telecommunications are a part; resupply of essential goods is a part... you get the picture. It takes time to venture into diverse topics, to saturate yourself with information, in order to see where it all overlaps. I have been sorting all of the information I come across against the potential impact of y2k on particular issues asking "will this exacerbate or mitigate the impact of y2k on my and my family's lives?" I have not found many areas of life that are not going to be impacted by loss of power, banking, communication, sensor control and management, etc. How big a push does a teetering global economy need to create catastrpohic stresses? How much additional stress can economically displaced populations create? How do governments connect to mitigate crises? How does financial relief move from place to place? I seem to remember a time when the only thing between survival and annihilation was a little red dial phone in the White House. I also remember a Russian early warning systems failure in 1995 that could have had catastrophic consequences had clear communications not been available. I know the former Soviet Union has no plans for y2k remediation. I know their missile command and control systems are largely pirated, probably non-compliant, U.S. clones. I wonder what crisis comm links we will have with the rest of the world on Jan 1?? Maybe nothing truly catastrophic will happen. I don't know. What I do know is the y2k problem has the potential for catastrophic impact. My sanity check tells me to: 1. pray, 2. prepare, 3. inform others, and 4. assist others in prudent preparation. Good luck to all of you and keep blowing the trumpet.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 1998


Trish, your well meaning and logical thought (#2, "Tell them everything - now - along with what to do so there will be no need to panic"), is unfortunately not realistic, in my view. First, not enough people will pay attention, and many who might cannot afford to do anything different. Second, the very presentation itself of "everything" and "what to do" will in itself create a certain amount of panic. How can one tell people "everything" (assuming a non- doomsayer can define "everything") and get them to actually follow the instructions? If many follow, the economy will "wretch" as forecasts fall apart, the economic supply lines will have all the wrong stuff in them, and large numbers of people will see that they cannot all prepare. Then what? We would have to stop the global economy and quickly start up a localized post-y2k supportable economy, never mind the ravages to Wall Street and the financial and political powers. The tell-all approach COULD work under one condition: the effects of y2k are localized and do not substantially shut down the infrastructure; this we have come to think of as an optimistic scenario. I wish I weren't so pessimistic! Judy

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1998

I would feel better if I knew more people were just taking sensible precautions: buying an one or two bottles of water a week, stocking up on canned/dried goods during sales, making sure of a source of heat. What is the worst that can happen if you take such precautions and they are not necessary? You don't have to go to the grocery store in Jan. 2000.

I think people will be told the truth eventually, but it will come out gradually - little by little - this may be calculated to try to prevent a panic. Another reason people are not as alarmed as they probably should be is that we've gotten so used to things changing completely every 6 months. Many people think a whole year is plenty of time to fix anything. Others realize this is a serious situation and they are doing what they can - including some serious prayer.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1998


Moderation questions? read the FAQ