Why didn't we all GET IT ?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I don't understand why all us GI's are so proud of "getting it" w.r.t Y2K, seeing all the "interconnections" and "fragility" so clearly, when ecologists have been hammering on the same themes from a much larger and more earth-shattering perspective for years. I'll bet the typical recent y2k GI did not "get it" ecologically then and probably still doesn't much care. Though the arguments ecologists could use with us are frighteningly similar to what we'd use on y2k DGI's.
What is it about y2k that awakened, energized, and radicalized everybody, when the ecologists have been calling all us same people DGI's for years ?? I bet even now the more extreme elements of, say, GN's forum would still ridicule and vituperate environmentalist claims of approaching eco-apocalypse, even though the arguments and evidence are very similar in tone and content. Is it a pre-existing emotional commitment or what ? Is it that is has a definite time line ? Is that what it takes to wake people up ? Or is it just that computers are sexier than vanished topsoil and dead oceans ? -RC
-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), January 21, 1999
What you're saying is: the Unabomber had it right
-- Blue Himalayan (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 21, 1999.
I admit to being one of these DGIs on green stuff, though I wholeheartedly endorse organics for farming, etc. Hey, we grow that way.
Educate me if you can.
I see this difference: the jury is out on the effects of our impact on earth over against the still unknown complexities of the ecosystem. I have read both sides of the global warming "evidence" and find each unpersuasive, for instance. By contrast, Y2K evidence seems just plain "harder". And, actually, though I may be in a minority, I find topsoil and dead oceans a lot sexier than computers, even though I'm a computer professional (oxymoron).
Plus, anything Al (duh ... duh .... duh ... Gore) is "for" has to be wrong :-) My opinion of the credibility of the Vanity Fair article was strengthened by the report that Gore's comment about Y2K was, "Hey, we have Microsoft and Intel, so what's the problem?"
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 21, 1999.
Please excuse me for being repetetive.
The Coming Anarchy: How scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism, and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of our planet, by Robert D. Kaplan
-- Old Git (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
The only things I care about getting are:
1. Enough water to last 12 months for 6 people. 2. Enough food to support 6 people for 1 year. 3. Enough guns and ammo to pick off those trying to get my stash.
Caring about hugging a tree is the last on my "to worry about" list.
-- bardou (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
The definite time line is a factor, but so is proximity. If you live in the U.S. midwest what immediate impact does a burning rain forest have on you? -- or a flood in China? -- or a hurricaine in Central America? -- or a beached whale anywhere? not a lot. But a glitch that might prevent you from getting money out of your ATM -- now THAT has crisis potential, here & now. Yeah, the average person is exactly that narrow-minded. If it doesn't immediately affect his next meal, TV show or sexual encounter, then it's just not that important. Too bad about those poor schmucks overseas, what time is the game on....?
-- fat american (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
I got it 30 years ago.
All the blather about ecology, even today is just b.s. There is only one solution to the ecological problems. That is a drastic, immediate reduction in the world population.
Y2K may "help" in this regard.
If population increases, TS will HTF, even if you can reduce all industrial and other types of polution to zero. That's because you still have to dispose of literally "shit".
I've "preached" the necessity of reducing birth rates for years, but neither the left or right are in favor of that. If you don't know why, you are a DGI, and I don't have time to enlighten you.
I don't think the Y2K thing is part of the NWO conspiracy, but it does play into their hands.
All you "breeders" have brought the ecological problems on yourselves. Much as I hate the NWO, I wish I was a part of it so I could stand on the sidelines and watch all the idiots (98%, whatever) go over the cliff.
-- Put (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
Global warming is a lot more possible now. One article I've seen says the earth's temperature in 1998 was the hottest in 1200 years. This article says 1998 was the hottest on record...
"1998 Was a Hot One"
-- Kevin (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
Sorry about that. The link is...
-- Kevin (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
Dear Put ,
Gee Put it sounds like you have the potential to LEAD the idiots over the cliff .
Just remember your death would help the enviroment. :o)
-- Mike (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
To Runway Cat and Put, Thanks for saying what needed to be said. I'm a senior citizen and the population has doubled in my lifetime; the results are horrifying. If you think talking up y2k will bring the wrath of the DGI's down on your head, just mention that you are an environmentalist; in my part of the U.S., and you are then considered prey. And you are right when you say that neither the left nor right will address the over-population problem. As fat american said, if it doesn't affect their next meal...they don't care.Only immediate terror or gratification gets the knee-jerk response.
Although I know in some ways a y2k disaster could hurt the environment, in the long run it will probably save it. As far as a great reduction in population as a result of y2k, I'm for it. The breeders, the church, the politically and socially correct have held those who GI, about over-population, hostage to their ignorant beliefs long enough. If you don't like what I've said, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Ck out Food, Land, Population & the U. S. Economy and maybe you will GI.
-- gilda jessie (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
I've sneaked money to Green Peace and Clean Water Org. when doing my bills, for years. Once I got caught by my husband. He took over paying the bills for several months, not trusting me anymore to be responsible with our finance.
-- Bad Housewife (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
What do global warming and y2k preparation have in common?
Well, for those obsessed with "hearing out both sides" and then letting our "elected" legislators and authority figures "debate" and decide when action is to be taken...
By the time the problem is PROVEN, it's TOO LATE to avert the consequences. And the consequences are MANY TIMES HARSHER than the steps that might have averted them 30 years or 12 months back. You have to act ahead of the curve of evidence -- not great scientific method, but we're talking survival. There's no practice Earth to experiment on.
Also, as Deep Throat said, "Follow the money". Very very few of the people counseling environmental remediation/y2k preparation have a business profit motive in the outcome. The other side is Big Bucks, Big Media Access, Big Congressional Influence. You tell me who ought to be trusted.
I mean, did you ever not notice that it really isn't a two-sided debate? When the other side shows up -- here in NG-land -- then we'll have "democracy in action." Not bloody likely.
Trying to convince others. Is that just internal code for "I'm still reeling from this myself. I need reinforcement. I think I need to see my power to convince someone else before I'm really sure I believe it myself"
It IS unbe--f***ing--lievable, you bet. So proselytizing is an understandable response. But moving forward is what counts. "Let the dead bury their dead," JC appropriately said. The whole GI/DGI thing is wearing thin. It's a dodge of some sort for each of us in some way. Let's get past it.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
RC: People refuse to believe anything that they do not want to happen, until such time, if ever, that they are given no choice any longer. Nobody likes bad news. The more unpleasant the news is, the harder the road to acceptance.
-- Rob Michaels (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
I've been saying things since 1975 when I began to understand that the world was going to change and the economy was going to take a dump. I've been kicked out of three churches for saying things that are radical. Why don't you believe me? Y2K is interesting and believable because the same people who gave the tools to the Banking Tyrants are the same Prophets of Destruction. Poetic Justice fer sure dude.
-- Mark Hillyard (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
That is it in a nut shell! The bulk of the world will get it 01/01/2000 and not one day before.
Y2K will thin the heard, and this will help the environment. But like Bardou, it is the last thing on my mind. I want my family and friends to survive the thinning.
-- Bill (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
Mark: Heh, that was funny about being kicked out of 3 churches for exercising your right to freedom of speech. Well, that's why I am so antireligion. I was kicked out of a church for questioning their authority over me and their doctrine. I was getting too close to convincing the sheep that they were being sheared. I was able to put a dent in their pocket book and I've been dispised ever since. But I feel liberated and free from the noose of lies that was held around my neck. It is true, just follow the money trail.
-- bardou (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
A pity, Put, that your parents didn't share your opinion.
-- Vic (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
PUT stated: I don't think the Y2K thing is part of the NWO conspiracy, but it does play into their hands. All you "breeders" have brought the ecological problems on yourselves. Much as I hate the NWO, I wish I was a part of it so I could stand on the sidelines and watch all the idiots (98%, whatever) go over the cliff. ******* PUT, the CREDO of the NWO IS to thin the population. Make no mistake about it. It serves 2 purposes. One is to be able to better control the population under a communist/totalitarian style government and two is to conserve resources. Now the really disgusting part of this is "free energy" was made available to us through a number of discoveries just after the turn of the century and was squelched in order for JP Morgan and other industrialists to profit from the business of providing energy to this planet at a premium. Of course, this is part and parcel to the massive reduction of resources and degradation of our planet. So, in effect, the establishment who buried the discovery of free energy also assisted greatly in bringing on the current predicament of decimated energy resources and resultant pollution.
In our recent history, when communism has taken over a country there has been massive genocide. I site Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Nicaragua which when totaled counts for upwards of 20,000,000 dead courtesy of their government (and this number is probably conservative).
Excerpt: The CCS (Committee on Constitutional System) whose members are also members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) desire to revoke our constitution...CCS Co-chairman Douglas Dillon believes "needed changes can be made only after a period of great crisis". Project '87 co-chairman James MacGregor Burns stated in 'Reforming American Government' "I doubt that Americans under normal conditions could agree on the package of radical and alien constitutional changes that would be required. They would do so, I think, only during and following a stupendous national crisis and political failure". In the October 1987 issue of Atlantic, CFR Chairman Peter G. Peterson forecast a debilitating economic crunch in the future. (end)
In 1968 the U.S. Government, despite the ardent lobbying of computer programmers against it's position, institued a standard for a 2 digit date field to be used in all transactions and with all government vendors.
Still think the establishment (aka NWO crowd) didn't plan on this event? Maybe, but maybe not. Commodities Trading/Financal Advisor Walter Burien thinks it was planned. Author David Icke thinks it was planned Author and speaker Alex Collier thinks it was planned
Excerpts taken from:
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
Good grief! To think this might have been planned is the scariest thing I've read yet. I hope that's wrong.
-- gilda jessie (email@example.com), January 22, 1999.
Speaking for myself, as one of the more extreme (and rightly proud of it) elements who frequents GN's forums, I have sensed ecological disaster in the offing for many years now, and my lifestyle reflects this. Reduce, Recycle, Reuse and - the often forgotten R - Refuse... as in refuse to buy overly-packaged, shoddy goods that are thrown into the trash stream in short order, incandescent light bulbs of short life and tremendous energy waste, and other depressing junk that floods the consumer market.
I am the only person in my community to be partially off-the-grid (solar), and have been so since 1985.
I plant trees for fun. I volunteer for river clean-ups.
When I make my political views known, I'm branded a right-wing extremist, in spades.
Pigeonholes don't work when it comes to people. I can still, however, make the observation that none of my liberal/socialist leaning acquaintances are GI's, and given their faith in Big Goonverment to despatch all problems, I can't see them geeting it until their noses freeze around January 5th next year.
Rational, forward-thinking people of any stripe are usually GI's on whatever issue is brought up, whether it's Y2K or the decimation of the planet.
Driven out by thieves, I watch them pillage the planet
fueled by a fattening greed, trees fall to the hatchet
chopping against the grain, our spirits in a vacuum
sadly ignore the pain, then arrives, we all lose
I hope it come, it comes, it comes around...
The Fixx, 1988
-- Why2K? (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 22, 1999.
You can't get to zero consumption (unless you're dead). Decreasing consumption can reduce the problem, but only until the population increases to a level where the TOTAL consumption equals and surpases the previous levels even though per capita consumption has decreased. And at the the rate population is increasing, it is a losing proposition.
This is simple math, but simple math is obviously beyond the capabilities of most to understand.
Every species that has a big surge in population in excess of the carrying capacity of its ecology has then suffered a big die-back far in excess of the amount required to achieve mere equilibrium again.
The human balloon has been ready to burst for some time. Y2K is likely to be the pin prick.
It's even too late, as another poster said (his "name") to "put a rubber on your willy."
But it's not too late to GROW UP -- put aside your belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the great pumpkin, and "GOD". Get real.
-- a (a@AisA.com), January 24, 1999.
Mr. A gets it. Actually, quite a few people around here get it, more or less. Most don't. Paul Ehrlich gets it and has said it most succinctly: I=PAT---Impact on the environmemt is the result of the factors P, as in Population; A, as in Affluence or how much throughput our economy requires (energy, resources, waste); T, as in technology or how we use that throughput.
If you don't "get it," there's nothing I can say in a 500 word post that will enlighten your worldview. There are any number of books on the subject, some of the best written by Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
I once criticised anyone who has an agenda for Y2k, that is people who want Y2K to solve their problems or advance their plans and ideas. I hereby recant that criticism. Perhaps a vision beyond mere survival might be necessary for many of us to survive. But any vision not based on "sustainability" (there's that word again) is only a stopgap, temporary fix, somewhat like windowing. Get it?
"That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest." ---H. D. Thoreau
-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), January 24, 1999.