The following is quoted, with permission, from Jim Able's posting on CSY2K. Amidst a lot of flame throwing, Jim's remarks are thought-provoking and well-articulated. "The issue I have is that those with extremist views (on both sides) are so caught up in their visions (or nightmares) of the future that they have no room in their minds to encompass what actually happens; and the noise of their debate drowns out any reasonable discussion of the underlying characteristics of our society that make it possible for such a trivial issue to (even potentially) cause such chaos. The important subtext that we are all missing is that our edifice of power and wealth is built upon (at least some) bricks of sand. Whatever the consequences in the next few years, we should be examining our assumptions and habits and most especially the aspects of our social compact that have evolved into place with no apparent intent but that have become fundamental components of our worldview. Some of those aspects cause us to share common vulnerabilities that humanity never before shared. Some of them cause us to be interdependent in ways and at scales never before conceived. Some of them rob individuals and communities of the ability to determine our own fates in ways so beguiling and yet pernicious that we have voluntarily climbed up on the platform, donned a blindfold and placed a noose around our necks, all the while reveling in the comfort of our new clothes and our full bellies.

Y2K may cause the trapdoor to spring open. It may not. Whether it does or not, the trapdoor is there.

And our entire civilization is standing on it."

Jim Abel --

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 11, 1999

Answers

Sorry, can't buy it. Without doubt, technology is accelerating the rate of change in our society. (James Burke said this very well at the end of his "connections" series as well). So the division of labor is necessarily ground ever finer. The importance of technical sophistication grows rapidly, and along with it the necessity for more and more education. As a result, of course we become increasingly interdependent.

But this doesn't make us any less masters of our fates than we ever were (which, for most of us, has never been very much). There is no trapdoor. However, changes are happening so rapidly that they become much more visible within a lifetime. Some revel in the changes, and others are deeply uncomfortable. Our values and our technology are opposite sides of a coin, each influencing the other in an ongoing spiral. Those who look forward can see what can be gained, and those who look backwards can see what has been lost (rather, replaced).

We're not building on bricks any sandier than they ever were, but we're recycling them much faster today than ever before. And this is neither good nor bad. Only different.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.

Flint --- That's an opinion and a wish. Not a fact. Anymore than the opinion raised above is a fact. Only time will tell, and not only about Y2K.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 11, 1999.

What I "read" into Able's commentary is quite simple, but beautiful. As humans, as society, we should make humanity a priority. . .and think about what we do, before doing it.

dw

-- dw (y2k@outthere.com), July 11, 1999.

Whoa! You know you've been reading this forum too long when you can read the first four words of a response and know it was written by Flint!

Mr. Flint, the original "bricks of sand" analogy was clear enough, but what did you mean by "recycling them faster"?

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 11, 1999.

Flint

Western Civilization is going to fall because it neglects the natural order. This is tragic and few have a clue. Try reading up on chaotic dynamics, turbulance, fractals and the lot. We are setting ourselves up for a fall.

Greenspan should have let the whole mess go last August and let the strong live and the weak die in business. Instead he propped an inadiqaute system. This "denial" of certian finacial "imbalances" could be the achilies heel. Way to much debt, not enough responcibility.

And this is just one of the feet of clay on the sand of society.

Wen Tsu

Chapter 34 P. 35 -36

Those who practiced the Way in ancient times ordered their feelings and nature and governed their mental functions. nurturing them with harmony and keeping them in proportion. Enjoying the way, they forgot about lowliness, secure in Virtue, they forgot about poverty.

There was that which by nature they did not want, and since they had no desire for it they did not get it. there was that which their hearts did not enjoy, and since they did not enjoy it they did not do it.

Whatever had no benefit to essential nature they did not allow to drag their virtue down, whatever had no advantage for life they did not allow to disturb harmony. They did not let themselves act or think arbitrarily, so their measures could be regarded as models for the whole world.

They ate according to the size of their bellies, dressed to fit their bodies, lived in enough room to accommodate them, acted in accord with their true condition.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 11, 1999.

I certainly have lots of qualms about the complex interdependencies built up in the modern age--and especially about global capital flows that total over $5 trillion per day. For those of you that might have missed it, the PBS "Frontline" investigative program entitled "The Crash" several weeks ago documented with chilling persuasiveness what can happen when Western greed and miscalculation push investment and equities bubbles to the breaking point in SE Asia, Russia, and Latin America (before we do it here at home to ourselves, of course). When you have even George Soros worrying about where these massive, virtually instantaneous (thanks to computerization) global capital flows are leading, you know you have a big problem.

Yet, I've noted in a previous post the virtually incomprehensible (to the late 20th-century mind) horrors of human life for almost all of history. Life still ain't too grand for many folks today, of course, but at least there have been many improvements, thanks considerably to science and technology. If we misuse our tools through greed, pride, or sheer stupidity, that's our fault.

"These days aren't as good as the good old days."

"No, and you know what? The good old days weren't as good, either."

(with apologies to Robert Graves and "I, Claudius")

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), July 11, 1999.

Big Dog:

Yes, of course. Change is a fact, and reactions to change are pure value judgments. I don't pine for the good old days, but I recognize that all of our choices carry associated costs. And while I feel that these costs have often been high, I don't feel (as Abel does or did when he wrote this) that they've been systematically too high. But as you know, I'm not a pessimist by nature.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.

Flint said:

"Without doubt, technology is accelerating the rate of change in our society."

The rate of change in our society is certainly increasing. I know of no way to tell whether recent increases in technological capabilities and activities are a cause or a result of that change. Do you?

"So the division of labor is necessarily ground ever finer."

This does not follow from your first statement. You appear to be implying that the increasing scale and complexity of our society requires that individuals content themselves with "cog-ness" to ever greater degrees and that there is no alternative. I disagree with both of these points. First, a social structure where individuals must (not may) rely on faceless strangers for all sustenance in exchange for a single activity is an economic machine, not a civilization. Second, high technology does not require the division of labor you refer to (except in a small minority of situations), it merely facilitates it.

"...we become increasingly interdependent."

Of course there is nothing wrong with interdependence. Our cooperative natures (when not killing each other) have made many things possible. Interdependence is needful, even good.

Dependence, however, is not. And our individual position with regard to the large entities that define the fabric of our society is one of dependence, not interdependence.

"But this doesn't make us any less masters of our fates than we ever were (which, for most of us, has never been very much)."

Speak for yourself.

"There is no trapdoor."

I'm sorry, but your comments indicate a regurgitation of corporate pablum with no critical thought at all given to the actual underlying relationships that have grown over decades as we reached myriads of nearly accidental accomodations between government, business and personal needs/desires/actions. We exist within self imposed perceptual boundaries with regard to the way we conduct our lives because these layers of accomodations have accreted over the years into a layer of ingrained assumptions so hard we are conditioned to act as though it is unbreakable and so opaque we have forgotten that any other possibilities exist.

The trapdoors reside in the common blind spots engendered by those assumptions. It is fortunate that Y2K has revealed one of them to us. It will be fortunate indeed if it does not drop open under us. And it will be a miracle if we take the opportunity for self examination this position of awareness affords and create change based on what we learn.

"Our values and our technology are opposite sides of a coin, each influencing the other in an ongoing spiral."

This sounds superficially visionary, but breaks down under examination. Wouldn't you like to replace "values" with "lifestyles"? That would bring it much closer to the truth.

Then I could argue with you about whether we should allow the relationship to continue in this manner and whether there are alternatives that bear examination.

-- Jim Abel (jimabel@glitchproof.com), July 11, 1999.

Trap door? Yes! ...and the trap door has a name...Greenspan

-- kellymeek (romper1@aol.com), July 11, 1999.

What happens when the "INVESTORS" and "FINANCIAL ORGANIZATIONS" panic and decide that their overseas investments are at risk due to Y2k problems? When they panic, do they try to repatriot their funds? How? What will be the impacts? Does this money go from one risky investment to another? When will they wake up? What is wrong with the Central Banks that they would lend their gold at one per cent interest and risk losing it never to be repaid? A bunch of idiots. Moe and Shep and I couldn't have screwed up the world economy any worse than this bunch has including our esteemed Federal Reserve and President. The higher it goes, the further it falls. The sheeple are buying the bargains based on the lies and earnings projections like the computer problems will be solved during a three day weekend.

-- Curly (Curly@notstupid.gom), July 11, 1999.

[Jim:

I think we might have the makings of a worthwhile discussion here. It's fairly abstract, and we may not be far apart once we define mutually acceptable terms. So I'll give it a shot.]

Flint said:

"Without doubt, technology is accelerating the rate of change in our society."

The rate of change in our society is certainly increasing. I know of no way to tell whether recent increases in technological capabilities and activities are a cause or a result of that change. Do you?

[From my vantage point, there's a feedback effect happening here. One thing leads to another. Technological developments cause changes, and changes lead to further development.]

"So the division of labor is necessarily ground ever finer."

This does not follow from your first statement.

[You're correct. I shouldn't have implied that it did, my mistake. However, at least within engineering there's been an explosion of specialties in the last couple of decades, with each becoming more narrowly focused all the time.]

You appear to be implying that the increasing scale and complexity of our society requires that individuals content themselves with "cog- ness" to ever greater degrees and that there is no alternative.

[You're saying several things here. I do feel that an ever finer division of labor is a *requirement* to support and increase the level of complexity. I didn't mean to imply that everyone ought to be content with this requirement, and many are not. But I do know that just keeping up with developments within my own little slice is a fulltime job. If I were to take a 6 month sabbatical, I fear I could never catch up.]

I disagree with both of these points. First, a social structure where individuals must (not may) rely on faceless strangers for all sustenance in exchange for a single activity is an economic machine, not a civilization.

[But this seems no more than a reflection of your own sense of helplessness. My understanding of history is that specialties have been with us as far back as we know. We've always had soldiers, and even the soldiers have specialties. Civilizations have always had economies, and economies have always had divisions of labor. You might prefer to view an economy as a machine (I see it as being much more organic), but economic activity is one aspect of any civilization. So your distinction isn't very meaningful -- like saying you're typing with your hands and not your body.]

Second, high technology does not require the division of labor you refer to (except in a small minority of situations), it merely facilitates it.

[Here we must agree to disagree. Only the most gifted people have enough time to become sufficiently competent in more than one little labor division to make a useful contribution (at least as measured in dollar income). Sure, I can do a rather lousy job at a fairly wide variety of things, so can most people. But in a complex technological society, genuine competence at any one activity requires that the activity be narrowly defined. And I don't believe we can maintain the complexity without maintaining the competence.]

"...we become increasingly interdependent."

Of course there is nothing wrong with interdependence. Our cooperative natures (when not killing each other) have made many things possible. Interdependence is needful, even good.

Dependence, however, is not. And our individual position with regard to the large entities that define the fabric of our society is one of dependence, not interdependence.

[I confess this distinction escapes me. Dependence means we depend on others. Interdependence means we depend on many others. We've had long debates here on the effective limits of self-reliance, and the necessary influence increased self-reliance has on one's lifestyle. This is a tradeoff we make. You may feel we're making a poor trade. Beyond this, I must ask for a clearer distinction between dependence and interdependence.]

"But this doesn't make us any less masters of our fates than we ever were (which, for most of us, has never been very much)."

Speak for yourself.

[Who else can I speak for? When I read about strict caste systems and strict guild systems and slavery, I feel freer than most people throughout most of history.]

"There is no trapdoor."

I'm sorry, but your comments indicate a regurgitation of corporate pablum with no critical thought at all given to the actual underlying relationships that have grown over decades as we reached myriads of nearly accidental accomodations between government, business and personal needs/desires/actions.

[Oh wow. What a longwinded way of saying we disagree. I don't see this trapdoor. Underlying relationships certainly evolve, and always have. Exactly what they are and what they mean to each of us, is subject to a great deal of debate, and always has been. But I admit a red light goes on when I read about faceless, evil corporate purveyors of pablum, which everyone *else* swallows without critical thought, but which you can see through. It smacks a bit much of blaming others for your own dissatisfaction with your life. I don't accept this blame, it's not my fault.]

We exist within self imposed perceptual boundaries with regard to the way we conduct our lives because these layers of accomodations have accreted over the years into a layer of ingrained assumptions so hard we are conditioned to act as though it is unbreakable and so opaque we have forgotten that any other possibilities exist.

[Sort of. Certainly our preferences also evolve. I can't say whether our perceptual boundaries are self-imposed, or are just reflections of the sum total of our life experiences. But we're not quite that blind. We can read about other times and visit other places and see differences quite distinctly. We haven't forgotten that other possibilities exist, we have (over time, yes, and unconsciously) made our choices and expressed our preferences and most of us are happy with the results. Some aren't, and go elsewhere or live differently.]

The trapdoors reside in the common blind spots engendered by those assumptions.

[OK, I can see that. But you're veering close to the old joke that we aren't really happy, we just *think* we are. Certainly the assumptions and blind spots of other cultures are much more obvious to us than our own (if that isn't tautological)]

It is fortunate that Y2K has revealed one of them to us.

[Which one? It's an old saying that who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. In this case, the sword is technology, but the saying applies full force. It's not some sudden revelation or anything.]

It will be fortunate indeed if it does not drop open under us.

[But wait a minute. Are you talking about the danger that our embrace of technology has created generally, or are you talking about improper handling of dates by computer software? This is a huge difference. If the former, perhaps you'd like us to revert to a simpler lifestyle. But if the latter, our belief that technology is a Good Thing remains unabated, the technology just needs to be improved. In that case (which is what remediation is all about) we presumably stay right in our comfortable blind spot, convinced that the answer to y2k is just more and better technology.]

And it will be a miracle if we take the opportunity for self examination this position of awareness affords and create change based on what we learn.

[What change do you recommend? I'd consider it much more of a misfortune than a miracle if we abandoned what has worked so well for us, simply because we're not as good at it yet as we'd prefer. Yes, I have hopes that we'll use this opportunity to improve our coding practices, and our documentation, and our technical management. But I don't seriously expect much change along these lines. And I don't *want* changes along other lines.]

"Our values and our technology are opposite sides of a coin, each influencing the other in an ongoing spiral."

This sounds superficially visionary, but breaks down under examination. Wouldn't you like to replace "values" with "lifestyles"? That would bring it much closer to the truth.

[Again we lack proper definitions here. I view our lifestyles as a reflection and extension of our values. To me, it's a value judgment to say that high technology is a Good Thing, and higher technology is a Better Thing. The lifestyle technology brings us is a side effect.]

Then I could argue with you about whether we should allow the relationship to continue in this manner and whether there are alternatives that bear examination.

[Well, I'm a believer in technology. It's more than just date bugs, you know. It's better health, longer lives, less hardship and drudgery, a much wider choice of everything from diet to mobility to entertainment. If you want to abandon this in favor of some different pattern of dependency, you should be very careful what you wish for.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.

Has anyone here read William Kotke's The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and the Seed of the Future? (Arrow Point, 1993 ISBN 0963378457)

If nothing else (though I think it's a very useful study) this book is an informed and comprehensive review of the situation Jim Abel mentions.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 12, 1999.

"The determining power is within. You should not be so dependent on outward things; it is this attitude that makes you give so excessive an importance to circumstances. I do not say that circumstances cannot help or hinder, but they are circumstances, not the fundamental thing which is in ourselves, and their help or their hindrance ought not to be of primary importance. In every great or serious human effort, there is always bound to be an abundance of adverse interventions and unfavorable circumstances which have to be overcome. To give them too much attention increases their importance and their power to multiply themselves, gives them, as it were, confidence in themselves and the habit of coming. To face them with equanimity - if one cannot manage a cheerful persistence against them of confident and resolute will - diminishes, on the contrary, their importance and effect and in the end, though not at once, gets rid of their persistence and recurrence. It is therefore a principle to recognise the determining power of what is within us - for that is the deeper truth - to set that right and establish the inward strength as against the power of outward circumstances. The strength is there - even in the weakest; one has to find it, to unveil it and to keep it in front throughout the journey and the battle."

-- Free Will (Free@will.com), July 12, 1999.

Flint says: "Beyond this, I must ask for a clearer distinction between dependence and interdependence."

Dependence: an individual or group must rely on another individual or group for a basic necessity. The dependent one being in a subordinate position.

Interdependence: A recognition that life is a two street. The individual or group recognizes that they are dependent on others while the others recognize that they are also dependent on each other. No one is in a subordinate position - we all hang together or we will all hang separately.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), July 12, 1999.

There is a trap door - always has been - always will be. All civilizations will crumble - all species will die - all worlds will end. It's only a matter of time - maybe billions of years - but inevitible just the same. This has nothing to do with Y2K or how humans _feel_ about anything.

-- Jim (x@x.x), July 12, 1999.

Bill P:

Well, let me struggle with this a bit (and thanks for the definitions, too).

First, it appears that we are all dependent to one degree or another. We all rely on others for basic necessities; nobody lives in total isolation. The values of our individual contributions vary widely, however. While compensation is admittedly a poor yardstick, it comes as close as anything we have as an objective measure of that contribution. *Very* roughly speaking, the compensation you can command on an open market reflects the relative value of your contribution.

Now I recognize the limitations of the market. Certainly the contribution made by an excellent but nonworking parent falls through the cracks. The point I'm trying to make is that dependence isn't a yes/no condition, but rather a matter of degree. While we all rely on many others, we don't rely on them all equally -- some contribute to providing our necessities much more than others. It's a spectrum. Everyone is subordinate to the social and economic systems that shape their lives, some much more than others.

And yes, at one extreme you will find those whose contributions are minimal or negative. Groups like children, criminals, the old and/or infirm (hospital or nursing home populations), and other institutionalized groups. Depending on your definition, you may also include welfare recipients. There may be a conceptual dividing line somewhere (not reducible to practice) below which are those who consume more than they produce. To the degree that they do so, I suppose you could define them as 'dependent'.

To me, all this is a separate issue from the question of *recognition* of the situation. We all rely on one another whether we recognize it or not. We are all subordinate to this reliance whether we recognize it or not. Of course we may all prefer to believe that we are making contributions at least equal to our subordination, and maybe half of us will be right!

So to summarize: I see a "spectrum of interdependence". I've drawn two lines through this spectrum -- one about in the middle, where contribution equals dependence, and the other at the far end where dependence is total and contribution is zero or negative.

Abel says interdependence is good, dependence is bad. But where on this spectrum he's choosing to draw his line isn't clear to me at all. But no matter *where* you draw this line, (as with any spectrum), the difference between those on either side of that line is nearly indistinguishable. Reducing this indistinguishable difference to something as black-and-white as one being Good, the other being Bad strikes me as a conceptual error.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 12, 1999.

Our forum at its best, IMO. Thanks Jim & Flint, and others.

You two seem to be contending somewhat about the specialization of labor, thinking of it in terms of "positives," the careers people are engaged in to earn their share of society's sustenance.

I'd rather think of (and prepare for) the y2k/economic depression scenario in terms of the "negatives", skills and facilities that people in large numbers DO NOT any longer possess.

During the Great Depression, America was still largely a rural, farming population. Nearly everyone had some basic access to land and food, or relatives (probably nearby) who did. Water, heat, basic transportation. Simple needs simply and locally met.

The concerns of many on this forum are that we have gone way out on a limb in losing these abilities to provide our own basic needs. I believe that is what Jim is calling a trapdoor. And I doubt that Flint can refute that increase in individual vulnerability, though he would then argue for the likely robustness of the systems covering that vulnerability.

(Actually, the many skills of people displayed on our two forums help me fear less about the general decline in skills. I'm hoping they are representative of our populace having many, many "hidden talents" outside of their 9-to-5 jobs.)

As for the other trapdoor, which I know Flint has more faith in than I, the financial system: it is possibly more vulnerable to upheaval than the technology system under the upcoming y2k "challenge".

I offer the following (LONG) snip from John Kenneth Galbraith on the speculative excess preceding that Depression as an example of what Jim is talking about with the term "interdependencies." And we know that Greenspan has called it "the danger of cascading cross-defaults."

Galbraith

_A Short History of Financial Euphoria_

"That the free-enterprise economy is given to recurrent episodes of speculation will be agreed. These  great events and small, involving bank notes, securities, real estate, art and other assets or objects  are, over the years and centuries, part of history. What have not been sufficiently analyzed are the features common to these episodes, the things that signal their certain return and have thus the considerable practical value of aiding understanding and prediction. Regulation and more orthodox economic knowledge are not what protect the individual and the financial institution when euphoria returns, leading on as it does to wonder at the increase in values and wealth, to the rush to participate that drives up prices, and to the eventual crash and its sullen and painful aftermath. There is protection only in a clear perception of the characteristics common to these flights into what must conservatively be described as mass insanity. Only then is the investor warned and saved.

"There are, however, few matters on which such a warning is less welcomed. In the short run, it will be said to be an attack, motivated by either deficient understanding or uncontrolled envy, on the wonderful process of enrichment. More durably, it will be thought to demonstrate a lack of faith in the inherent wisdom of the market itself.

"The more obvious features of the speculative episode are manifestly clear to anyone open to understanding. Some artifact or some development, seemingly new and desirable  tulips in Holland, gold in Louisiana, real estate in Florida, the superb economic designs of Ronald Reagan  captures the financial mind or perhaps, more accurately, what so passes. The price of the object of speculation goes up. Securities, land, objets dart, and other property, when bought today, are worth more tomorrow. This increase and the prospect attract new buyers; the new buyers assure a further increase. Yet more buy; the increase continues. The speculation building on itself provides its own momentum.

"This process, once it is recognized, is clearly evident, and especially so after the fact. So also, if more subjectively, are the basic attitudes of the participants. These take two forms. There are those who are persuaded that some new price-enhancing circumstance is in control, and they expect the market to stay up and go up, perhaps indefinitely. It is adjusting to a new situation, a new world of greatly, even infinitely increasing returns and resulting values. Then there are those, superficially more astute and generally fewer in number, who perceive or believe themselves to perceive the speculative mood of the moment. They are in to ride the upward wave; their particular genius, they are convinced, will allow them to get out before the speculation runs its course. They will get the maximum reward from the increase as it continues; they will be out before the eventual fall.

"For built into this situation is the eventual and inevitable fall. Built in also is the circumstance that it cannot come gently or gradually. When it comes, it bears the grim face of disaster. That is because both of the groups of participants in the speculative situation are programmed for sudden efforts at escape. Something, it matters little what  although it will always be much debated  triggers the ultimate reversal. Those who had been riding the upward wave decided now is the time to get out. Those who thought the increase would be forever find their illusion destroyed abruptly, and they, also, respond to the newly revealed reality by selling or trying to sell. Thus the collapse. And thus the rule, supported by the experience of centuries: the speculative episode always ends not with a whimper but with a bang. There will be occasion to see the operation of this rule frequently repeated.

"Less understood is the mass psychology of the speculative mood. When it is fully comprehended, it allows those so favored to save themselves from disaster. Given the pressure of this crowd psychology, however, the saved will be the exception to a very broad and binding rule."

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), July 12, 1999.

[Flint said]

[I do feel that an ever finer division of labor is a *requirement* to support and increase the level of complexity.]

But not to support and increase the "mundane" needs of everyday life as human beings. These two things (technological complexity and everyday life) are intermingled in our social structures only because businesspeople habitually apply complex technology to leverage opportunities for profits without regard for any values that do not jingle in the pocket and individuals habitually regard the latest opportunity (or product or service or gadget) as the best whether it is or not.

[But this seems no more than a reflection of your own sense of helplessness.]

Not helplessness. Ire.

I'm not saying that specialization is wrong, Flint. Or interdependence. Or even (to a limited extent) dependence.

We have constructed a vast social edifice, and it is a fine one indeed. We are habituated to creature comforts that would bedazzle kings from just a few generations ago. This edifice could not exist without the technological complexity that we have, or the (inter) dependence we all share, or the finely grained division of labor.

There are imperfections in the depths of the diamond, however. Some of them may be just small specks of carbon that mean nothing to the luster. Some of them are unfortunately visible to those who look carefully. And a few may be the manifestations of flaws that, with the right pressure applied at the right angle, could crack the stone into worthless shards. [You might prefer to view an economy as a machine (I see it as being much more organic)]

Indeed this might be a fundamental point where we differ. I see the economic aspects of our current social structures overpowering the social, personal and community aspects to the point that our "civilization" has become a marketplace where we exist only to buy and be bought, to sell and be sold to. A place where the casually and selfishly evolved whims of a handful of large corporate entities are eagerly embraced as The Best Of All Possible Worlds. And available in seven stylish designer colors, as well. [Only the most gifted people have enough time to become sufficiently competent in more than one little labor division to make a useful contribution]

You misunderstand my point.

We'll assume that high technology is good, and that specialization and the division of labor and all that are required to support it. Obviously, some (even most) must harness themselves into cubicles and Do The Job so that all may benefit. Honestly, I have no problem with any of that (far from being a luddite, I'm an ardent technophile!).

But this high technology that we are nobly sacrificing our precious time to create, it does not force itself upon us. It does not require that we reinvent our everyday habits to maximize profits for some corporation. It does not dictate our choices of how much of this wonderful techno-genie magic we allow into our personal lives and just where and how it is applied.

We are being dragged willy nully into an everchanging future array of new things we "must have" and "must do" not by poor innocent technology in it's little pink jumper, but by people. People who see a personal (usually financial) advantage in herding the public toward whatever shiny bauble they have created and would like to sell.

[Dependence means we depend on others. Interdependence means we depend on many others.]

Dependence means that we can't cut our own meat. Interdependence means that we don't bother to forge our own knives.

[But I admit a red light goes on when I read about faceless, evil corporate purveyors of pablum, which everyone *else* swallows without critical thought, but which you can see through.]

Um, I didn't say "faceless" or "evil". I didn't say that everyone swallows it without critical thought. I didn't even say that I could see through it. You said those things.

I used a phrase "corporate pablum". The specific meaning I had in mind is readily derived from the two words in the phrase. "Pablum" is often thought of as easily digestible, sometimes specifically predigested, food. In this context I refer not to food but to information. And I used the word "Corporate" to properly point at the source of the "Pablum". I was of course referring to the casual and routine habit of "working the press" by corporate entities (with every intent of creating specific consumer mindsets) along with the casual and uncritical acceptance of "any system that fills up WalMart and mails me platinum cards is OK with me" by individuals.

[I don't accept this blame, it's not my fault.]

I don't blame you or anybody. But don't blame me if you look around one day and realize that your life consists of breaking your neck to bring home currency (which likely arrives in your wallet without ever knowing the hand of a neighbor, friend or local merchant) and then breaking your neck to spend it (in places and in ways that instantly transport it thousands of miles into the coffers of a handful of large corporations, again without any hesitation or benefit at a local level.

[What change do you recommend?]

See above.

-- Jim Abel (jimabel@glitchproof.com), July 13, 1999.

Greetings, Jim,

I'm delighted to read you contributions here. It has been more than a year since I admired your mode of expression and worldview over on csy2k, where they seemed so out of place among the hardcore technical postings and contumelious shoulderings of the rough-and-tumble geek guys.

I have found it much more comfortable to monitor the Y2K situation from TB2K. The technical competence is adequate, the references and links are current and varied and, until recently, a significant portion of the threads displayed as lofty and thoughtful a character as this one.

I hope you wil find other discussions here to be worth your attention and comment.

Hallyx

"Invest yourself in the quality of the discourse, not in the outcome." --- Richard Reese

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), July 13, 1999.

Sorry, Flint,

Please don't think I'm trolling you. But I couldn't let this one get by me before this thread slides down into oblivion.

I'm glad that you "...recognize that all of our choices carry associated costs. And while I feel that these costs have often been high, I don't feel (as Abel does or did when he wrote this) that they've been systematically too high."

I have observed that the burdens of the those "costs" is rarely apparent to those who do not bear them, particularly intelligent, young, white, middle-class, technically-orientd (especially), Western men.

For all of your rationality, fairness and admirable ability to see all sides of an issue you, along with Decker and others meeting the above description, remain remarkably "short-eyed"---I do not mean short-sighted---an appellation I learned from my Indian friends. It implies a philosophical inability to identify with one's ancestors, as well as with one's progeny ("even unto the seventh generation"), and should not be confused with history or futurism.

Re: (as Abel does or did when he wrote this). Having known Jim Abel though his writing for over a year, I can attest that he has felt this way for some time. It is not something he feels "as he wrote this," although I can understand why you in particular might think that.

I'm surprised to hear you say, "I'm a believer in technology." I try very hard NOT to "believe" in anything. A true skeptic, I attempt to either "know" or admit that I don't. I have always thought you too rational to merely subscribe to a faith, especially faith in something as demonstrably ephemeral and equivocal as modern technology. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

You further assert, "I'm not a pessimist by nature." Neither were most German Jews in 1937. Neither were Native Americans in the 19th century.

It's not a date thing; it's not a tech thing; it's not even an economic or a social thing. It's a "vision" thing or, more properly, a "worldview." And it is not something that will likely be changed or modified by communicating on an internet forum. Nonetheless, this is entertaining and enlightening, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your cordiality.

Hallyx

"We wait, breathlessly, for a Deus ex Machina, realizing only to late that our intelligence is a sword made of feathers and our faith but a gossamer shield for our vanity."

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), July 13, 1999.

Occasionally Fate orchestrates a fortuitous encounter amongst thinkers on this forum. I hope Flint, Abel and others will continue the discussion here on a new thread. Perhaps Flint and Abel could initiate a fresh discourse each week... seriously! In any case, thanks for a delightful read.

-- Reader (anon@anon.com), July 13, 1999.

Back at it again. Good conversation.

[Flint said]

[I do feel that an ever finer division of labor is a *requirement* to support and increase the level of complexity.]

But not to support and increase the "mundane" needs of everyday life as human beings. These two things (technological complexity and everyday life) are intermingled in our social structures only because businesspeople habitually apply complex technology to leverage opportunities for profits without regard for any values that do not jingle in the pocket and individuals habitually regard the latest opportunity (or product or service or gadget) as the best whether it is or not.

--- Unless I completely misunderstand, I must regard this as *way* off base. Profit is the reward for providing something someone wants. The vast majority of new businesses go broke, often for failing to meet a perceived want or need. We vote our preferences with dollars, and the latest opportunity gets voted down much more often than up. Even the most successful and well-heeled corporations lay eggs frequently - Microsoft produces more losers than winners (remember 'bob'), and Coca-Cola 'new coke' was a catastrophe for them. Nor do the profitable winners bury all their money in a sock. They expand, they pay more, the start new businesses, they keep looking for things we are happy enough with to continue buying. Where's the evil?

You sound like you want your cake and eat it too. If our lives were (as they once were) cruel, brutish, and short, you'd moan about it. If instead our lives have become long, healthy and comfortable, you continue to moan that our comfort has blinded us to the importance of spiritual rather than material satisfaction. While I can't guarantee you or anyone spiritual fulfillment, I can guarantee that our technological, profit-oriented society affords you one *hell* of a lot more time and energy to search for fulfillment. In any case, a short life of grinding drudgery is hardly the fast track to moral righteousness.---

[But this seems no more than a reflection of your own sense of helplessness.]

Not helplessness. Ire.

I'm not saying that specialization is wrong, Flint. Or interdependence. Or even (to a limited extent) dependence.

We have constructed a vast social edifice, and it is a fine one indeed. We are habituated to creature comforts that would bedazzle kings from just a few generations ago. This edifice could not exist without the technological complexity that we have, or the (inter) dependence we all share, or the finely grained division of labor.

--- no argument with that, for sure ---

There are imperfections in the depths of the diamond, however. Some of them may be just small specks of carbon that mean nothing to the luster. Some of them are unfortunately visible to those who look carefully. And a few may be the manifestations of flaws that, with the right pressure applied at the right angle, could crack the stone into worthless shards.

--- Good imagery, but I can't seem to relate it to anything concrete. My opinion is that we've made good tradeoffs. We have *not* found the mythical free lunch. As others have pointed out, no civilization has ever been immortal. There are always flaws, which eventually come to dominate, and the civilization morphs into something no longer quite recognizable as what it once was. And change is *never* neutral, disinterested as it may be. There are always relative winners and losers. ---

[You might prefer to view an economy as a machine (I see it as being much more organic)]

Indeed this might be a fundamental point where we differ. I see the economic aspects of our current social structures overpowering the social, personal and community aspects to the point that our "civilization" has become a marketplace where we exist only to buy and be bought, to sell and be sold to. A place where the casually and selfishly evolved whims of a handful of large corporate entities are eagerly embraced as The Best Of All Possible Worlds. And available in seven stylish designer colors, as well.

--- As I wrote earlier, not everything available sells well. Most are bombs. But I sense that this isn't your point, quite. People fear flying not entirely because they might crash, but because of helplessness. Here you are in some big, incomprehensible vehicle, that works according to principles only hazily understood (if at all), and you can't see or even speak to the pilot. It goes where it will, how it will, and you have no control or influence over any of it.

I think you're viewing our society the same way. We rely heavily on people we'll never meet. The mechanisms of our lives are increasinly hidden -- we can't really understand any longer how our individual decisions might influence the world around us. Certainly any such influence is also hidden. So you posit distant, uncontrollable entities (the Bilderbergs, the big corporations, whoever) who are anonymously shaping our lives and our very dreams, sucking our souls dry of meaning.

But this religious reaction is nothing new or different, only the gods have changed. They are as vindictive, incomprehensible, whimsical and all-powerful as ever, just wearing different clothing. And there are always people who long for the days when reality wasn't so damn impersonal.---

[Only the most gifted people have enough time to become sufficiently competent in more than one little labor division to make a useful contribution]

You misunderstand my point.

We'll assume that high technology is good, and that specialization and the division of labor and all that are required to support it. Obviously, some (even most) must harness themselves into cubicles and Do The Job so that all may benefit. Honestly, I have no problem with any of that (far from being a luddite, I'm an ardent technophile!).

But this high technology that we are nobly sacrificing our precious time to create, it does not force itself upon us.

--- Whoa! What's this sacrifice? People have always had to work to survive, however primitive the culture. ---

It does not require that we reinvent our everyday habits to maximize profits for some corporation.

--- Argh! Maybe you could argue that we are following our noses along the path of least resistance. Maybe you could make a case that our consumption decisions are shortsighted (too little savings, too much debt, too many things are disposable, etc.) Maybe you could say that we haven't yet developed a healthy resistance to advertising, and that marketing departments are taking full advantage of our natural compulsiveness.

But we are *not* reinventing our habits to maximize anyone's profits. You have this exactly backwards. Corporations are certainly looking to maximize their profits (not a bad thing at all, by the way) by placing temptation in our paths. To the degree that they correctly identify what tempts us, they are profitable. If we're not interested enough, they lose money. Many industries (especially entertainment, movies and music) lose a bundle on 90% of their offerings, and hope to make all that up and more on the remaining 10%. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. And this all depends on the decisions we make as individuals.

And this is fundamental to the way an economy works -- any economy. Nobody holds a gun to our heads and forces us to spend our time in any particular way (unless you're in the Army) or our money on any particular good or service. There's a natural feedback effect that an economy depends on, and the choices we make as individuals, taken together, determine the future choices we'll have available to us. The big corporations are essentially brokers, determining our needs and fulfilling them as well as they can. You may not personally *like* the decisions we've been making, but that's a different issue. If we have any enemy in this regard, they is us. They ain't the greedy corporate profiteers. ---

It does not dictate our choices of how much of this wonderful techno- genie magic we allow into our personal lives and just where and how it is applied.

--- exactly my point. We aren't dictated to. We make free choices, whether you approve or not. Consider the Amish. ---

We are being dragged willy nully into an everchanging future array of new things we "must have" and "must do" not by poor innocent technology in it's little pink jumper, but by people. People who see a personal (usually financial) advantage in herding the public toward whatever shiny bauble they have created and would like to sell.

--- Again, nonsense. The people is us. We aren't being dragged, we are voluntarily scrambling hell-bent for these baubles, or at least the ones we want. Our system is set up so that if you can provide something people really want, you get big rewards. What's wrong with that? Are you really claiming that we'd have a better world if we had to make do with stuff we didn't want, just so that those who offered such junk could go broke with their self-righteousness intact? Ideally, we strike bargains that benefit both buyer and seller. ---

[Dependence means we depend on others. Interdependence means we depend on many others.]

Dependence means that we can't cut our own meat. Interdependence means that we don't bother to forge our own knives.

--- These semantics bother me. Maybe independence means that we can cut our own meat if we choose, pay someone else to do it if we choose, and even forge our own knives if we choose. Sometimes I think we live on different planets. You look around and see our choices constrained unacceptably by the system. I look around and suffer from Toxic Option Syndrome, I have so many choices available to me. ---

[But I admit a red light goes on when I read about faceless, evil corporate purveyors of pablum, which everyone *else* swallows without critical thought, but which you can see through.]

Um, I didn't say "faceless" or "evil". I didn't say that everyone swallows it without critical thought. I didn't even say that I could see through it. You said those things.

--- Sorry if I misinterpreted. You spoke in an earlier post about "faceless strangers".

I used a phrase "corporate pablum". The specific meaning I had in mind is readily derived from the two words in the phrase. "Pablum" is often thought of as easily digestible, sometimes specifically predigested, food. In this context I refer not to food but to information. And I used the word "Corporate" to properly point at the source of the "Pablum". I was of course referring to the casual and routine habit of "working the press" by corporateentities (with every intent of creating specific consumer mindsets) along with the casual and uncritical acceptance of "any system that fills up WalMart and mails me platinum cards is OK with me" by individuals.

--- Nobody is forcing you to accept predigested information. Again, this may be the path of least resistance, but it wouldn't be followed if it weren't attractive to US. You sound like someone who blames whoever sold you that pizza because you ate too much and got a bellyache. Personally, I shop at WalMart because they sell what I want. I don't feel like a victim simply because I'm happy with what I buy and equally happy that I can afford it. And seriously now, how long has it been since you watched an ad on TV and felt some overwhelming compulsion to run out and buy the product? Indeed, advertisers are increasinly unhappy because when viewers see ads, they change the channel or kill the sound or go to the bathroom or kitchen, or otherwise avoid it. They want fewer channels, and we people (remember us?) want *more* channels. And you'll notice we're getting more channels. ---

[I don't accept this blame, it's not my fault.]

I don't blame you or anybody. But don't blame me if you look around one day and realize that your life consists of breaking your neck to bring home currency (which likely arrives in your wallet without ever knowing the hand of a neighbor, friend or local merchant) and then breaking your neck to spend it (in places and in ways that instantly transport it thousands of miles into the coffers of a handful of large corporations, again without any hesitation or benefit at a local level.

--- Huh? I'm not breaking my neck. I love my job, it's challenging and very satisfying. If I were so rich I didn't need to work, I'd show up each day anyway just for the fun of it. If you're unhappy with your job, why not find a better one?

As for spending, that's fun. You won't find many people who find spending to be a neck-breaking chore, I don't think.

As for the corporate coffers, you must be kidding. To paraphrase Ecclesiastes, all the money flows to the coffers, but the coffers are not full. Why not, do you suppose? Where do those obscene profits really go? Ever wondered? You owe your education, your job, and many of the comforts of your life to those coffers, whether you like to admit it or not.

No benefit at a local level? *Everywhere* is a locality. Is it really that world-shattering to you that when I shop at the local WalMart, I'm spending money paid to me by a company that may have made that money by selling a product in Thailand or Zimbabwe? Would you rather live in poverty so long as the products of all your neighbors' efforts stayed within a radius of a few miles? Why?

I really can't determine whether you are bemoaning the global nature of today's economy, or the sheer morality-rotting *richness* of that economy.

Deep-seated satisfaction with the quality of your life probably doesn't correlate highly with material goods. Rich people are as likely to be as unhappy as poor people, just for different reasons. And when poor people win a big lottery, they become no happier (beyond the transient euphoria). When happy rich people lose everything, they don't become miserable either. These answers lie within each of us, not with some vast, oppressive external 'system'.

Note that I'm *not* saying this is the best of all possible worlds. There are great things and lousy things, and there's rapid changes in all directions, some good and some bad (from my subjective viewpoint, anyway). And for all I know, I'm happy only because I've been too steeped in the greedy programs others are running me through to even realize what's happened to me. Even so, I wouldn't trade with you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 13, 1999.