Having given considerable thought-- not only what to prepare for, but also the variance between DGI's and GI's. (naturally curious in human thought diversity). It occured to me that the differences may be due to psychological variance. If I am driving a beat up volkswagon and want to manifest a new car, I would not visualize getting a rolls-royce!-- why! because of the variance in the thought-- where I am TODAY (volkswagon) and what I want to materialize (newer car). The closer the car is that I'm looking for to what I'm currently driving, the easier it will be to ACCEPT my ability to achieve it. Now if you reverse this mental process-- where most people are today---lights,power,heat,food,jobs,cars,fuel,tv,money,comfort,etc. and you suggest to people that these things may not be here in 6 months, the psychological variance is so great that it just does not compute mentally or seem the least bit probable! But to a doomer, the variance does not seem to be as great. (Just a Thought)

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 22, 1999

Answers

Interesting treatise. I think that more detail must be given to the "doomer" thought process. The following is MY OPINION ONLY...

A "doomer" is more likely to have a greater ability to postulate on a series of "what if" scenarios, and is better equipped to perform a rational analysis of the potential for major problems. It's sort of like a "big-picture" person vs. a "detail-oriented" person.

The big picture says that everything is interconnected, and multiple failures at multiple process-points will be the norm. This is due to their clearly seeing the spiderweb that holds our world's supply- and banking-systems, and division of labor system together.

Now, that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with their REACTION to the issues. Some will prepare modestly, being either monetarily or space- limited. Some will prepare vigorously (I count myself in this category), sacrificing short-term comforts and finances for the ability to "ease their families" over the rollover, "just in case" bad things happen. Some will sell their homes, buy a hidey-hole in the boonies, and build a compund in the forest, stocked with enough ammo & MRE's (three lies for the price of one...) to last through Armageddon.

To all people of all camps, I urge the review of this essay by Art bell, Are you prepared to be wrong about Y2K? This is MUST reading, as far as I'm concerned. (Note: Hyatt's site was having problems earlier, so keep trying)

Whatever your beliefs, you must do whatever allows you to sleep at night. If that's nothing, so be it, and welcome to you. If that's a bunker in the mountains, go for it. Just remember (ALL of you), *IF* you're wrong, will you have a "back door" out of the situation you put yourself in? If not, perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.

Doomer or Polly, the same rules apply. We're all in the same boat ultimately, and WHAT WILL HAPPEN, WILL HAPPEN, and all the verbal bullshit in the WORLD won't affect ONE SECOND OF IT.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 22, 1999.

Very interesting points for sure. It is also a possibility that hard- core Pollys are simply dumb as dirt.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 22, 1999.

Oops! That should be ART WELLING'S essay....

Thaaaannnk yoooouuuu Anita...

(I sure HATE rented fingers)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 22, 1999.

Dave,

I don't think the masses just got what you wrote...well said, BTW.

-- I'm (with@titude.now), June 22, 1999.

Hmmm.... so the people who believe in flying saucers are just more mentally flexible. The people who call the psychic hotline have a greater ability to overcome cognitive dissonance. The serious pessimists have a better ability to see a big picture....

Please.

The serious pessmists see a big picture drawn mostly from overactive imaginations and misinformation on a myriad of subjects. The people who think they can survive the meltdown of society by storing food, water and shelter have some misfiring synapses. This is like the goose eating extra before Christmas.

The "everything is interconnected" mantra is no more accurate than the code is broken. The strength of capitalism is the multi-layered redundancy of competing firms offering similar goods and services. If one firm fails, there are other firms actively vying for additional market shares.

This is why our system has functioned through a bloody civil war, the Great Depression and countless other disasters including national crises. Europe recovered after two world wars in this century where large amounts of physical infrastructure were completely destroyed. You think the U.S. is going to dissolve because of some computer problems?

The real verbal BS is the argument pessimists are somehow smarter than everyone else.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 22, 1999.

Well first of all, Mr. SmartAss, let's hear you explain the phenomenon behind UFO sightings. Swamp gas I suppose. Talk about speaking where you know little of the subject...geesh.

And furthermore, it looks like you've done it again:

"The people who think they can survive the meltdown of society by storing food, water and shelter have some misfiring synapses."

I guess you would suggest that NOT doing so increases one's odds?

-- a (a@a.a), June 22, 1999.

Hey Mista Deckah,

We'ze not "mentally flexible", we'ze jus' breathin' air, insteada our own shit, huh? We ain't gonna "survive the meltdown of society", we'ze gonna INSURE THE SURVIVAL OF SOCIETY, ya heah? If I seeze ya in the troublin' times ahead, I'll feed ya. Ya kin work it off on ma spread, sho' enuff...

The "strength of capitalism" in the time of crisis ain't "multi- layered redundancy", it's MULTI-LAYERED CONTINGENCIES! Ya know it ain't gonna be "one firm fails" this time, bubba.

You'se right about one thing; "our system has functioned through a bloody civil war, the Great Depression"...., but it wasn't this heah system, now was it?

Fat_C

-- Fat_C (f@chance.com), June 22, 1999.

Mr.Decker:

If you think that "our system has functioned through a bloody civil war and the Great Depression", you just know NOTHING about history or economics, sir.

Sorry for my boldness sir, 'cause I know you try hard to maintain your reputation as the 'expert economist' around this forum. At least that's your assigned role, right Mr. Decker?

Sir, have you any idea what was at stake at the Civil War?

Mr. Decker, have you at least read Alvin Toffler's analysis of Second and Third Wave clash?

Thought so.

Mr. Decker, have you read Lord Keynes?

Thought so.

For your information Mr. Decker, sir, our country did NOT function through both of the above mentioned events. That's why the US had to be essentially, re-done. Yes, done over again, with a lot of pain, great pain for many people, the type of people which you are NOT helping right now, simply because you don't care.

Decker, between you and me, just who do you work for?

Who is your boss Decker? Tell us, will ya?

Decker, are you ignorant (posing as knowledgeable) or just plain conceited, or both?

Ooohhhh, I see, you are just trying to make a buck ! O.Kay, why didn't you say so... Maybe FLINTon can help you out of this one Decker? Ooohhh, I see, it's your turn right now ! O/Kay, let's wait till he punches in his card in a couple of hours and then you can go and have a beer while he thinks out something with the rest of the other ignorant guys you both 've got behind you.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 22, 1999.

Thank you, gentleman, for proving my point. To Mr. UFO, no, I do not think stored food will be the most significant factor determining one's survival if we experience a post-Apocalyptic nightmare... no more than having a new rifle ensures survival in combat.

To Foghorn Leghorn, when has it ever been "just one firm" failing? Thanks for the offer, but I'll be just fine next year.

Finally, young George. Frankly, I don't give a tinker's damn about what "the forum" thinks of my expertise, economic or otherwise. I'd be happy if I could get a coherent response on a semi-regular basis... unlike yours. What does the "stake" of the Civil War have to do with the prevailing economic system of the time? What does a "pop" futurist like Toffler have to do with this discussion? Or Keynesian economics for that matter? Our country was not "re- invented" during the either the Civil War or the Great Depression. It was the same Republic, the same Constitution, and the same economic system... despite Roosevelt's New Deal quasi-socialism.

Perhaps you can take your rambling and fashion it into a coherent post. How about an essay on how America did NOT function during the Civil War or the Great Depression? Oh, tell me how there was no commerce or trade. Tell me how lawless riots dominated the cities.

Even if you just rant, please try to make sense next time.

Regards,

Ooohhhh, I see, you are just trying to make a buck ! O.Kay, why didn't you say so... Maybe FLINTon can help you out of this one Decker? Ooohhh, I see, it's your turn right now ! O/Kay, let's wait till he punches in his card in a couple of hours and then you can go and have a beer while he thinks out something with the rest of the other ignorant guys you both 've got behind you.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 22, 1999.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 22, 1999.

An interesting question was posed. Are you prepared to be wrong about Y2K? If I am wrong:

(1) I will be eating fresh eggs (all commercial eggs are imported from off-island, or even the mainland).

(2) I will be eating fresh vegetables and fruit from my garden and orchard.

(3) I will be prepared for a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, winter storm, solar flare, or layoff.

(4) I will have checked out a lot of new recipes. Hardtack, sweet 'n sour SPAM, etc.

(5) I will have developed new skills that will be interesting hobbies or even alternate jobs: soap making, jerky making, jam making, etc.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

And others who make-believe that this forum is entirely populated by crazed loonies,

Believe it or not, there are quite a few of us that read and risk posting on this forum (however rarely) that are NOT motivated by religious dogma or revelational beliefs;

-that do NOT bother to read GN's web site;

-that do NOT believe that the NWO (what ever that is) is set to take over, or even that there is such a thing;

-that do NOT see Black Helicoptors behind every tree;

-that do NOT see any evidence that we are being *fumigated* by contrails;

-that DO see Y2K for what it is: a historically big programming screw-up (although with good reasons), and an even bigger management 3-monkey problem.

-that DO see a HUGE problem with the way things are progressing.

From my position, I do see a realistic probability for some significant (possibly catastrophic) scenarios which would cause any reasonable, responsible parent to prepare for the welfare of one's family, for at LEAST several months disruption.

The probability of a global recession/depression is not something to dismiss, but to be prepared for. If one honestly believes that MORE preparation than that is required, then that is an individual/family decision, and should not be derided. A family so prepared could never be a burden on on anyone else, and should be applauded. The notion that even a moderate percentage of our population preparing for more than a few days would cause a collapse of our food distribution infrastructure is, quite frankly, laughable, unless they all tried to acquire it all at once.

The obvious solution to this problem would be to encourage people to prepare gradually, with forethought. Market forces could have accomodated this easily. It still may be able to, even at this late date. Is the government encouraging this course? NO.

Are you? NO. Not really, except through some obscure meanderings about "smart living", which many (most?) people are not in a position to start employing in time to matter, unless they start NOW. You and I may be practicing "smart living", but don't you think that you owe something to those who maybe aren't as smart as you are, to warn them, LOUD and CLEAR? Instead of spending (wasting) time debunking "doomers" that are really in a small minority?

BTW, by disruption, I mean: uncertain or possibly contaminated water; perhaps unreliable or absent electricity; and extremely high-priced, government-rationed, or just-plain unavailable foodstuffs. For weeks to months.

Fuel shortages for transportation, quite frankly, is a no-brainer, at the very least. Attend to the reports of the readiness of our largest suppliers, if you've missed it.

I realize that this appears to be only my opinion, and perhaps it is. I am not a big-iron programmer, although I respect those who are, and listen carefully to them. I HAVE been listening. Some of them even work for me.

My email is real, My name is an irony. Do you have a conscience?

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 23, 1999.

BTW:

Ah, sir, unless I misremember, the "stake" in the War between the States (spent too much time in VA to call it anything else [tee hee]) was the very economic structure of the Southern States. Slavery was the ONLY way to make the cotton, etc. plantations work, economically. The norhtern industrialists recognized this, as did the plantation owners. The country was quite literally being split by two economic systems, and the South was in danger of developing primacy in the Halls of Government. (Had not goten there but were in danger of getting there.)

The northern industrialists encouraged Lincoln, pointed out the cognitive dissonance (modern term) involved in a country supposedly founded on the statement "We hold these truths....etc." and legal slavery, and generated taxation plans etc which were successful in making things uncomfortable in the South. The only way for the Southern States to fight this was constitutionally, under the banner of States Rights. They were defeated there and so they seceeded (broad generalization, some left on tactical grounds, some for other reasons). The War then ensued as Lincoln tried to "Preserve the Union" with the subtext of freeing the slaves and therefor destroying the competing economic system (of the South).

Curious that you would have dismissed the "Stake" as being unimportant, to a person who lives in and for economic discourse.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), June 23, 1999.

You think the U.S. is going to dissolve because of some computer problems?

Mr. Decker,

That's a "10" scenario. You still don't even understand where a majority of people on this forum are coming from.

Do yourself a favor and stick with economic theory.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 23, 1999.

It must be hard for the "GIs" to be so much smarter than the rest of the world.

What is the problem with all the good Y2K news (other than we cannot "trust" the media)?

What is this "probability" of something worse than global depression?

Why make the government responsible? Or me? What am I supposed to warn people about? I'm on record saying I think we'll have a recession next year partly due to Y2K problems. There is a slight possibility of a depression, however, the preparations are largely the same.

If the "doomers" are the minority, why are they doing all the talking?

How are fuel shortages a "no brainer?" What percentage of petroleum is used for life-sustaining commerce and emergency services? What percentage is used for direct commerce... and how much is wasted? We are awash in power, and could function as an economy on far less than we currently use.

Yes, Spin Doc, I have a conscience. I also have a mind and use it as well.

Chuck, if you can make sense out of George's post... decode it for me and send me the translation. How does "slavery" apply to Y2K? And for the record, it was more than slavery.

Link... a majority of posts on this forum deal with a "10." Most of the folks I met in Virginia were focused on a "10." Where are these hidden moderates?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

You know better than that. But, if by chance you do truly believe that a majority of this forum believes the U.S. is going to dissolve, then you're just as much of an extremist in your own way.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 23, 1999.

I am on the high side of moderate. I do not believe in a 10. I believe in a 7 (at the moment).

Decker says: "Europe recovered after two world wars in this century where large amounts of physical infrastructure were completely destroyed."

I cannot speak to WWI, because it was quite a bit before my time, but I CAN speak to WWII in England. My father, who abided by anti-hoarding laws, was, by 1940, reduced to stealing cabbages and carrots from the fields to help feed his family. A great animal-lover, he was forced to snare rabbits--poached, from the local Duke's estate. These activities continued long after the end of the war--not because the food was free (poaching then and now carries heavy penalties), but because it was the only way my father had to provide his family with proper nutrition. Food and other items (clothing, consumer goods, etc.) were rationed until 1957--TWELVE years into recovery. The United States helped keep us alive by shipping enormous quantities of dried milk, dried eggs, Spam, oleo and other food items. I didn't see an orange until 1954--it was a luxury. I remember very clearly in 1952 (when Sir Edmund Hillary scaled Everest) a small boy asking for the core of the apple I was munching at the park--SEVEN years into recovery. When people got married, their friends and relatives contributed ration coupons so that a dress could be bought for the bride and some ingredients could be provided for a cake--long after the end of the war. Young married couples lived either with in-laws or shared with older married friends because so many houses and flats had been destroyed, and the practice was more common than not until at least the late sixties--more than TWENTY years into recovery. I watched the progress of reconstruction in the downtown area of Sheffield in Yorkshire--in the late sixties, again more than TWENTY years into recovery. The damaged portions of the art gallery and museum in Weston Park were not reconstructed until the early 1970s--about THIRTY years into recovery. Until the early to mid-60s, life in England was, on the whole, dismal, dull, damp and cold. And we had not been used to all the electronic marvels so easily available today. Not that many people had central heating. Our children still knew how to play with spinning tops, hoops and other home-made toys. Not so today.

Yes, we recovered. But it was onerous beyond belief--how do you think British food got its terrible reputation? It came from the GI's in WWII and long afterwards, visiting from occupied Germany, who experienced the dreadful stodge, all that was available to eat for many years.

I do not believe Y2K will bring problems nearly so severe, but I do believe there MIGHT be some deprivations. Having experienced severe deprivation in one part of my life, I do not see why I should put myself or my family at risk for more when it is so easily alleviated. Anyone who habitually so blithely reduces the misery of world war recovery to a few dismissive words is not to be trusted in other pronouncements.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I make a point of realizing everyone has an opinion on most every subject known to man. This subject just happens to elicit more than its fair share of emotion. That is what makes it so interesting. As I would never be one to usurp my intellect over another (unless an obvious mental illness existed)with a subject that at best involves pure speculation. I have often realized that I may be ignorant about alot of things but not about my own ignorance! Mr. Decker I have only one issue to address with your post. You used the word PESSIMISTIC. If you knew me personally that word would not come close to a description of my overall outlook on Life. As an entrepeneur that has started several businesses with nothing but optimism and common sense, you've got to come up with another analysis to address those of us labeled doomers that don't quite fit into your stereotypical UFO,Psychic network Label!!

Respectfully

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 23, 1999.

Link you are wrong. There was a thread sometime ago that polled all the doomers. The average was an 8 with an easy slide into 10. Just a reminder 10 is the scenario with no government.

-- Read (the@archives.here), June 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

I don't know you from Schmo. I'm fairly new to this board, and don't know all the "personalities".

One thing interests me about you. The claim here on the board is that you're an economist, yet your "energy" post above shows little or no understanding of the economy in the U.S.

The single main ingredient (IMO) that allows us to enjoy near-100% employment (and thousands of new jobs nationally each month) IS being AWASH in energy! You are ENTIRELY correct in your assessment that we could "make do" on MUCH LESS. However, as an economist, what do you think the end RESULT would be to our employment rate? As I'm sure you know, when unemployment is HIGH, the entire economy goes in the crapper.

It's a recesseion when it happens to your neighbor. It's a depression when it happens to YOU.

I just don't understand (from what I've read on this board) how you can take the stand that you do. I find Milne's (whoever HE is) old "bet" to be appropriate here: "If we don't have MAJOR problems, I'll kiss your BARE ASS on the steps of city hall at high noon", or some such thing.

That's pretty much how I feel. I WAS a 4. As time has dragged on (and before coming to this board), I've become a 6-7. My oldest friend says often "When the green flag drops, the bullshit stops". We're 191 days from the green flag dropping. (It'll take a couple months for the FULL effects to kick in).

*IF* bad things happen, and *IF* this board is still in business after, *I* would like to see you and the other "pollys" make a PUBLIC apology for your short-sightedness, and the damage that you've done. I don't think, however, that we'd ever hear from your "camp" again....

BTW, *I* am MORE than willing, if I'm wrong about all this, to stand tall before the mast and admit it. *I* (and my preparations) have caused no shortages and no deaths. 95% of all money spent went to things I use anyway. No MRE's, no "hidey-hole" in the woods. Just extra "regular" food, water, heat, and power...

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 23, 1999.

Dear Mr. Decker:

(1) Thank you !!! At my ripe age, your "young George" merited a bottle of French champagne and some healthy laughter around here. My wife is deeply grateful to you sir, 'cause she just loves champagne. Thanks again guy.

(2) I guess that you got clobbered enough by other posters Mr.Decker in order to know better next time. So I don't need to dwell upon the subject matter at hand for the time being. By the way, it's not only that you were obviously wrong in what you said, but probably it's your conceited attitude that irritates and warrants a couple of intellectual torpedoes up your guts, sir. Has anyone ever told you anything along this line of thought? Well, learn, will ya!

(3) Mr. Decker: As you well know, there is a lot at stake with Y2K. Obviously enough, your are posting in the Ed Yourdon forum, right? You understand that, I gather. So then, if you want to be taken seriously, you should act accordingly. To prove it Mr. Decker, will you please post your comments at the following threads? Because your "hit-and-run" professional troll technique confuses people that are trying to prepare for Y2K. - "Gallup poll on bank runs"

- "US agencies missed Fed deadlines for Y2K contingency plans"

- "Institute of Electrical/Electronic Engineers (IEEE) letter to the US Senate concerning liability"

"Banking industry furthest behind"

and many, many other threads you carefully avoid, mainly involving the rest-of-the-world's y2k non-compliance and its impact upon the US economy. Because the rest of the world does exist Mr. Decker, you admit that, right? And it directly affects US economics in today's globalized economy, right sir? I know we would agree on something.

Nice exchange Mr. Decker. Thank you again

Yours truly

-- "Young George" ha, ha!! (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 23, 1999.

Read, you said: "Link you are wrong. There was a thread sometime ago that polled all the doomers. The average was an 8 with an easy slide into 10. Just a reminder 10 is the scenario with no government."

The average OF THOSE WHO RESPONDED TO THE POLL may have been an 8, but the average of "all" the so-called doomers is unknown because they didn't all respond. In any event, a poll is only valid for the moment it is taken; the result may not be the same if the same question were asked today.

-- Interpret (an opinion@poll.correctly), June 23, 1999.

Decker: your comment "so the people who believe in flying saucers are just more mentally flexible." frames the polly mentality quite well.

You think UFOs are a hoax. Did it ever occur to you that maybe they aren't flying saucers and they aren't a hoax either? That they represent something our tiny minds cannot yet comprehend? Just like our best computers cannot model y2k?

You have proven yourself to be a misinformed pompous ass, once again.

-- a (a@a.a), June 23, 1999.

Dennis,

Sorry, wrong answer. Energy is the not the determining factor of the economy. America had a robust economy prior to the development of the grid. We suffered a Great Depression that had nothing to do with the generating capacity of electrical power. Power is a commodity, a factor of production in a modern economy. The price rises and falls based on market factors like supply, demand and (hopefully) deregulation. Frankly, Dennis, I've read more insightful economic analysis on the side of cereal box.

As for apologies, I'll be available throughout next year. Jot down my email address and keep it handy. When the world does not end, drop me a line.

George,

Please don't wait for me to buy your wife champagne. I assumed you were young because your writing suggested a lack of education and/or expertise... both products of time. To this point, I do not consider myself "clobbered." I have enjoyed my exchanges with the thoughtful pessimists. They have raised good points and I acknowledge same. The "rant and rave" crowd, however, have yet to lay a glove on me. The personal attacks demonstrate a lack of reasonable counter arguments, bad manners and usually a dreadful command of language.

Yes, George, I know this is the "Yourdon" forum. I don't need to "prove" myself to you. I'll respond to posts that interest me. I will not be drawn into the fool's errand of analyzing every negative Y2K news report. Nor will I quote every positive report (and there are many) to support my claims. Why don't you demonstrate that the results of Y2K will be worse than economic depression. Take your time. Cite your sources and make a comprehensive argument. Or do you just want to play "dueling" news stories?

A,

I have yet to see conclusive scientific proof of flying saucers. The same applies to the Yeti, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, ESP and most of the "paranormal." If you are interested, research the issue, present your findings and prove the hypothesis. Until then, watch tabloid television shows for your science.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 1999.

Oh, Decker, you forgot the Sun King. I figured out a way to prove that God is the Sun. Or the Sun is God, whichever.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

The reason you've seen better economic analyses on a cerial box is because I'm NOT AN ECONOMIST (I'm an electrical engineer and systems analyst/programmer). I just see things, and draw conclusions based on the evidence.

While you are entirely correct in your statement that we had a robust economy prior to the advent of "power", what we DIDN'T have is 280+ MILLION people to support, feed, and give jobs to. The more people you have, the greater the infrastructure needs to support them. It takes ENERGY to light buildings and power machines, in order to employ people. Once again, it's all "connected".

May I ask if you believe that America could support its current population, in terms of food, housing, and employment, WITHOUT expending vast quantities of energy? If so, I'd LOVE to hear your treatise on how that would be done.

Also the "kiss my bare ass" comment was NOT to meant flame you, I just thought it was cute, and it nicely summarized how I feel about this whole mess. I apologize if I offended you.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 23, 1999.

Decker said:

"Until then, watch tabloid television shows for your science."

One of my undergraduate degrees is a BS in Physics, Mr. SmartAss.

-- a (a@a.a), June 23, 1999.

Interesting debate. However, I remain in the trenches trudging toward emotional freedom from fear of the risks associated with over-dependency upon automated "systems" that provide my family's basic daily needs of shelter/warmth, water and food.

These (economic, mechanical, etc.) systems are largely beyond my personal control to remediate from the effects of the y2k problem. From conflicting information I have received, my conservative nature tends toward discounting any sense of assurance that these systems will remain reliable to the point that I can continue to stake my life and my family's life on their daily continuation. That is the bottom line.

Every day, I vow to do some act that will bring me closer to putting into place the structures, tools and skills I will need to provide for my family's long-term basic needs without assistance and to give them some level of a reasonably comfortable and happy existence. It will not be the same type of lifestyle they have grown accoustomed to, but their basic needs will be met, and they will have the means to cook, create light, have access to hot water, sanitation and a healthy chance at carving out a good future life for themselves.

I refuse to be a victim. Placing oneself in a state of dependency invites victimization and oppression. I refuse to be a whiner. Situations don't improve by complaining. I refuse to be a debater. Arguing "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" is non-productive and doesn't affect the reality of the issue. I will act. My actions may prove to be unecessary or to some "wrong," but they will alleviate the state of my dependency and feeling of helplessness. I will feel more in control of my destiny.

The "debates" on this forum are "interesting," but have little impact upon my journey toward self-sufficiency. If y2k is a non-issue when the millennium rolls around, I do not care. I will have earned the knowledge and skills and have the means to survive to carry with me in the new century. I will pass them along to my children.

It occurs to me that modern life has much in common with the undocumented code with which programmers now struggle. When I was younger, as a trainer, I helped programmers convert manual work processes into automated processes. We have forgotten the underlying rationale, logic, sequence, cross-applications, etc. of the tasks or work that were once done manually or with other resources. For instance, perhaps our children should know how to add and subtract, multiply and divide without the use of a calculator. Perhaps we should all know how to lay a fire and grow a garden. I hazard a bet that it will make us a much stronger people in the long run.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), June 23, 1999.

It's possible to have a large population (China) and relatively low (or at least poorly distributed) technology. Electrical power is an important factor of production for our current economy. This is one reason power will continue after the first of the year. Of course, I am sure you have read the positive reports from the NERC. Even if these reports are optimistic, a large share of our current generating and distribution system will be online. There will be tremendous economic incentives to fix localized failures. I'll start taking this more seriously when Fortune 500 companies start building their own generating plants next to their offices.

America will not go without power. We bombed Yugoslovia using our "smart" weapons technology and the finest pilots in the world. The lights stayed on. Even if you outlawed power, like in Prohibition, there would be energy... it would just be more expensive.

A,

Perhaps you should give it back, if you are not going to use it.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 24, 1999.

Mr.Decker It is not that y2k will lead to "worse than" a depression (necessarily), it`s that if the U.S.A. does slide into a depression in the next few years what would that depression be like? Mr.Decker do you wish to claim that if the general economic "numbers" of the 1930`s America were transplanted to 2000-2010 the general effects would be about the same? IF THERE`S ANY ONE THING THE WORLD DOES NOT NEED IN 2000-2010 ITS USA IN A DEPRESSION!

-- bud (bud@computersedge.com), June 24, 1999.

Read,

Here's a thread on Y2K concerns from May. It has a wide diversity of opinion on potential problems:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qEk

"What Are Your Top 3 Y2K Concerns, Right Now?"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 25, 1999.