Not sure if you folks read this... a programmers views...

In late 1997, I was hired as project-lead for the 'distributed systems' portion (3,500 desktop computers) of a Y2K remediation project for a county in a western state. The company I worked for was low bidder for the project. As time passed the project faced budget over-runs - but isn't that normal for a government project? The county commissioners had decided Y2K compliance within the agency should not be mandatory; rather, it was a cooperative effort depending on the decision of each department head; and since some department heads had already decided Y2K would not be a problem, we weren't allowed to evaluate their systems or mainframe connections. I saw the usual power plays and territorial/turf battles that are common in corporate America.

The remediation plan was finally begun after two months of seemingly endless meetings. During these meetings I learned more about mainframes and inter-connectivity than I ever wanted to know. During my 'down' time while waiting for the actual remediation work to begin, I discovered your website as I gathered information about Y2K issues. I played Y2K 'what if' games and designed algorithms with my programmer-friend in the next cubie.

What I learned in the meetings made me realize the impossibility of the remediation task at hand, even with an early start (1996), a relatively good budget and support of administration. What I learned from the internet created deep concerns regarding our reliance on technology. My friend bought a little gold; so did I.

Dr. North, you were the only writer I found who described the relationships of technology to the 'division of labor'. I learned that global inter-connectivity isn't just a matter of electrons moving billions of dollars at specific interest rates into overnight holding accounts. I learned it includes basic services we never think about, such as transportation, the power grid, agriculture, and paychecks. It is related to being able to pump drinking water out of the ground to fill a glass, and to determining when you will have your next meal and what will be on your plate. In other words, we commonly expect an outcome, but don't give a thought as to how the outcome is achieved.

I left the projecct last summer and put my house on the market. I began to store food and to gather tools that will allow us to go back 50 to 100 years if necessary. I have a flour grinder and extra can openers. Matches. Canning lids - I have been practicing canning food - yesterday it was beef stew. This week the grocery store had 4-ounce cans of pepper is on sale; so far I have18 cans. Last week it was canned corn; also barbecue sauce (a form of 'canned gravy'). I made a deal with the landfill to buy the propane tanks people throw away. Simple camping gear. I bought a shotgun and two rifles.

When the house sold, my wife cried, and I cried. She is still crying - it was a nice house; we lived there 16 years. We are having some extremely difficult times over this. Intellectually, she understands - emotionally, though, well... moving to a rental hasn't been easy. With the proceeds we bought more gold and silver, and cash. I closed my 401K, closed all but one checking account, and essentially removed my family and myself from the banking system. We are looking for a 'vaction retreat'. There is much still to do... not much time.

Why am I so deeply concerned, to the point of taking these actions? It is clear to me, the system is broken. It cannot be fixed. It is just too big. It is too late. Even today, there are no standards for programming a date field. 'Windowing' is not the solution. Contingency actions should be well under way by now.

Gloom and Doom? Maybe. But please stay with me a moment longer, the next part is very important.

Several months ago you recommended a book by Pitirim A. Sorokin, "Man and Society in Calamity". My daughter found a copy in the library of her college - first edition, 1942 - and she checked it out for me.

Dr. Sorokin lived through the Russian Revolution of 1918-1922, and later became a professor of sociology at Harvard. This book is a study of how people have behaved in times of calamity - 'famine, pestilence, war and revolution' - over some 6,000 years.

People are affected differently by calamity, often depending on such factors as geography. Consistently, though, city dwellers pay larger prices in suffering and dislocation than others. Some are made destitute, and others become wealthy. Regarding starvation and transfer of wealth, he shows that starving people begin to think exclusively in terms of food at the expense of all else, including money and their personal values.

As they reset their priorities, he wrote, "in the effort to obtain more food they sell everything they have - clothing, furniture, pianos, pictures, and what not. In Soviet Russia, during 1918-1922, almost everything that the rank and file of the starving city population possessed went to the villages or food dealers in barter for food - from furniture and gramophones to wedding dresses or family heirlooms." (Note the relationship of the transfer - FROM the cities TO the villages.)

Sorokin suggests that famine and pestilence are twins, famine arriving first. Starvation leads to a weakened immune system, which leaves the body open to the first disease to come along. In major calamity, historically, famine has led to widespread sickness and death.

In addition to these physical illnesses, mental aberrations appear and abnormal behaviors increase. He writes: "Hunger and thirst have triumphed over many of the instincts and activities of self-protection, military honor, and the like... who does not know of cases where famished persons have ravenously devoured obviously dangerous foods which otherwise they would not have touched? Who has not heard of soldiers and criminals who have taken refuge in forests or other hideouts, only to be driven forth by the pangs of hunger in search of food at the risk of being seized, imprisoned, and even killed? The author, when being hunted by the Communists in 1918, hid himself in a forest. Twice, however, he and his companion were compelled by starvation to venture forth into the villages for food, in spite of the grave danger of being caught and shot. In Petrograd a number of persons were forced by starvation to steal vegetables and other food from the public kitchen gardens, to falsify documents to obtain food, and the like, in spite of the fact that the death penalty was pitilessly meted out by the Soviets for such actions." (Note, the government in this case had become an enemy of the people.)

Sorokin wrote on "Modification of Ideas, Beliefs, Opinions, [etc.] by Hunger." "Suppose that we are confronted by a dry loaf of bread of poor quality, or by a piece of somewhat putrid meat. If we are not hungry, we respond to these stimuli by speech reactions such as: "Nobody, not even a dog, would eat it. It is nauseating!" But after prolonged and acute starvation our reaction is as follows: "Excellent! Delicious! Wonderful!" and we avidly seize the bread or the meat. The half-rotten flesh of horses that had died of starvation was eagerly, even greedily sought by most of the Russian population during the famine, and it was eaten with as much relish as well-nourished people eat the best steak. The same was true of the flesh of dogs, cats, and even mice and rats. Mikkelsen and Iversen, under the stress of starvation, decided to try the liver of a dead dog which even their own dogs would not eat and which they knew was to some extent poisonous. After cooking it, 'We taste it critically...; but the first little mouthful is speedily followed by one considerably larger, and two broad grins of delight with inarticulate murmurs of satisfaction, announce that we find it delicious.' What is "tasteless" or even nauseating under normal circumstances becomes 'delectable' to a famished person. What is called 'malnutrition' in normal times is sincerely regarded (and often with good reason) as 'overfeeding' or 'luxury' in times of famine." (In his notes at the end of the book, Sorokin wrote that as a result of this episode, Mikkelsen and Iversen indeed became seriously sick. They knew better than to eat the liver, but their state was such that they ate it anyway, knowing it was at their peril to do so.)

Also in his work Sorokin describes another extreme, people who share the last morsel of food with a loved one at the expense of themselves. He tells of otherwise normal people becoming criminals as well as those otherwise normal folk who become heroes. He documents cases of saints becoming sinners and of god-less people becoming saints (literally).

These things will all happen again. We just don't know when or where. And none of us knows what we may become, nor how our own (or our neighbors) behavior will be effected by circumstances involved with calamity. Hero? Criminal? We just don't know.

For me, after working with Y2K at a fairly high level; after learning about the possibility of interruptions of the systems required to get food from the farm to my plate; from sociology, from historical as well as current events; from watching the behavior of our government officials; and after generally reviewing my life, I have concluded:

1.. I like to eat. And I enjoy seeing my family eat good nutritious food.

2.. I like to be warm. And I enjoy that each member of my family has a warm, dry bed to sleep in every night.

3.. I like to feel safe. And I enjoy having a sense that my family is safe.

4.. These are important enough for me to invest time and money, in fact, everything I have, in order to achieve them. . . .

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 20, 1999

Answers

"I am a sane person, surrounded by insanity"

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 20, 1999.

Andy--

I sincerely believe that everyone of us that is in this process of becoming self reliant/sufficient is being made stronger through the effort. While the future can not be infallibly predicted, it must be dealt with in kind, considering the overwhelming evidence supporting scenarios that yield unsatisfactory results.

The one thing that doesn't change is "everything changes" We don't like change if we are comfortable, ala Bill Clintons re-election. But comfort is on the list of those things that are "due" for a change.

I have been guilty on occasion of being overzealous searching out the *indicator alert*. But on the whole, everything I have read has made me more knowledgeable, everything I have built has improved my tactile skills, everything I have feared has made me grow in my faith and dependence, everything I have prepared for has increased my independence.

There is not a single *thing* that can not be replaced, but a life lost is tragedy to those that remain. I admire you for your efforts. Keep up the good work, and keep the faith. This goes for all who honestly try to help others, it is a great commission!

Respectfully;

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), June 20, 1999.

Andy,

Does the pronoun "I" in the text of your posting refer to you yourself, Andy, or to someone else?

When you are quoting someone else's words, will you please inform your readers of that in one of the customary ways rather than simply presenting those words in the same format as you would present your own words?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 20, 1999.

This article was posted weeks ago. I remember the part about the dead dog's liver.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), June 20, 1999.

Thank you Michael, what does not kill us makes us stronger.

No Spam, what's a pronoun when it's at home?

Even the densest person could figure out it was not me who wrote the piece, ... "A programmers views..." - and even if they did, so what, it all adds to the pool of knowledge - is this not a public forum to disseminate knowledge.

Get off your high horse.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 20, 1999.