When the Y2K problems to be addressed launched plans founded on the erroneous premise that "people, the public will be our greatest problem", rather than "people, the public will be our answer, our solution" there was no place except disaster for those plans to culminate. The very different premises call for very different strategies and methods upon which to propose restoration and recovery. As truth was a casualty of the plan founded on "the public is the enemy" premise there is no hope left because lies have the power to suay only so long as they appear to be true and when Y2K problems begin to maifest themselves much greater than was admitted there is no cadre of forces large enough to manage the public reaction to life threatening circumstances which were anticipated and known by public leaders but of which they were deliberately kept ignorant. And when simple measures that may have saved many many lives had they been sincerely advised by our leaders cause untold misery I expect many civic, media and business leaders to reap a terrible public fury for the way the problem was presented to them.

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@prodigy.com), July 18, 1999

Answers

The only problem with people is that there are too many of them. You know it and I know it. Technology isn't bad, neither is science, or nuclear energy, or anything else you doomers whine about.

It's the number of people plain and simple. Maybe one day some of you will realize that people just aren't as important as you thought. We don't own the Earth it owns us. You take advantage of it , you die. So what? BFD. A few billion people living or dead doesn't amount to anything in the big picture. When you finally come to the conclusion that humanity just isn't that important you'll see exactly what I mean. When you reach that epiphany you'll understand that it would wiser to call oursleves "human kind" instead of "the human race".

Because face it, no is watching this race but us. Your ego might have you believe otherwise. But you know it's true. It's not Y2K your all worried about it's your destiny. Anybody with an ounce of real fate would already know that you don't need to be a "survivalist" you just need to be a "survivor".

Go ahead prepare away, spend all your duckets on buckets and all your bills on pills. Won't change the inevitable fact that your doomed anyway. But that doesn't mean you have be a "doomer". In fact you ought to see th humor in this. A bunch of itsy bitsy tiny little "people" who think they amount to somthing in the big picture. No sorry kiddies, you have alot of growing up to do before the other species begin to take notice of you.

What ego! What vanity!

No wonder your worried about losing everything, you got nothing else to live for but yourselves!

Oh well. Watch out for the boogeyman, and don't let the Y2K bug bite. Watch where you put your feet when your climbing that ladder of Salvation, you know how you can get a nasty bruise when you fall on your pride.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

And Mr. Sucks calls other people doomers???!!!!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Pot

Kettle

Black

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 18, 1999.

Hey, doomers@suck.com, get a life you NITWIT !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 18, 1999.

Hey I don't need criticism from you chuckle heads any more than I need a five year to teach me how to drive a stick shift.

So save it!

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

to "doomers@suck.com" Is everything you say colored by your struggle to resolve your relationship to God? Do you think we all ought to know about your very private problem of unbelief and the angst it causes you? You illustrate my point perfectly that a plan based on a false premise ends tragically. In your case that would be the false premise that there is no God which is destroying your perceptions.

-- Ann Fisher (zyax55b@prodigy.com), July 18, 1999.

Doomie says

Because face it, no is watching this race but us. Your ego might have you believe otherwise. But you know it's true. It's not Y2K your all worried about it's your destiny. Anybody with an ounce of real fate would already know that you don't need to be a "survivalist" you just need to be a "survivor".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually this has little to do with what the poster above was saying but you have raised a few "interesting" points.

What is "real fate"

How can you "worry about your destiny" as it is often considered preordained

Survivalist isn't even in my pocket Oxford Dictionary. In which context were you useing it?

Surviving IS hardwired into life.

Oh and the earth doesn't "own" us, we are in a symbiotic relationship with it and the earth with gladly take my atoms as well as your atoms, think of it as the great recycle bin :o)

Ann was talking about a political - media problem and you managed to have your message (which is square on "doomer") totally out of context. If you would like to start a new thread with your conserns I would be happy to chat with you.

Sorry for the station identification but we are now back to our regularly schedualed programming.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 18, 1999.

Ann:

I think you've hit the nail on the head. As a culture, we've ceased to thing of our fellow man as "brothers", or even as "citizens" -- we now see each other as "consumers" (that is, small components of a vast money-making structure). The wrong #1 premise = the wrong answer.

Doomer: I understand you believe sincerely that "The only problem with people is that there are too many of them." I suggest that you act according to your beliefs -- and eliminate yourself from the planet, thereby relieving some of the problem.

What? You only want OTHER people to go away? Oh. As long as we really understand where you are coming from....

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 18, 1999.

Hey "Doom-Suck" Re your quote "The only problem with people is that there are too many of them", since you are part of the problem when do you plan to make your exit? For the good of the Planet of course.....

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), July 18, 1999.

**********MAN-PROPOSES------GOD DISPOSES************* EVER HEARD OF>>>TOUGH--LOVE.

-- who,s in control? (dogs@zianet.com), July 18, 1999.

Kozak, the little troll is a liar. When he says, "There are too many people", what he really means is, "There are too many other people" (not including himself, I mean).

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 18, 1999.

That is true, you can't be too picky you know. You sure as hell can't live under a blanket of political correctness because all you get left with is half wits and welfare families.

Hey I pull my own and I'll be damned if I left someone else glob onto me just becasue "it's the nice thing to do".

The nice thing to do is what got this planet over populated in the first place. But don't listen to me just go ahead thinking that some greater force will intervene and sort your problems out for you. Don't worry about taking responsibility for anything. I'm sure "God" will keep you safe from your own undoings.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

DoomSuck,

I bet you "Pull your own". You use vaseline or KY? No doubt no else will.

-- kozak (kozak@formerusaf.guv), July 18, 1999.

I read somewhere about a ranch hand in really rural Wyoming back in the '30s. He and his wife had 11 children and another one on the way. On his wages their life in the boonies was hardscrabble indeed. A friend very carefully asked him, "Roy, when you folks going to quit?" The ranch hand supposedly replied, "Soon as we figure out what's causing it."

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 18, 1999.

When you reach that epiphany you'll understand that it would wiser to call oursleves "human kind" instead of "the human race". -- doomers@ suck.com

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Mankind. Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind. --Jack Handy [From "Deep Thoughts"]

-- CD (not@here.com), July 18, 1999.

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

http://www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/990517A5DE

Fed's mixed Y2K messages could spawn panic

By William Ulrich

05/17/99 The U.S. government claims that the worst year 2000 scenario we face is panic. But that may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Inconsistent Y2K messages from the White House could increase perceptions of an escalating cover-up and, in turn, drive people to panic. If the government wants to avoid such an outcome, it should acknowledge that it doesn't know what to expect so we can prepare for a range of possible problems.

In an April 22 speech to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, a major regional organization, the president's year 2000 czar, John Koskinen, said that "a growing problem confronting every country is the risk of overreaction by the public."

He added, "We expect that our basic infrastructure will hold, that our electric power grids will function, that our telecommunications systems will work effectively and that our banking systems will not have major difficulties."

It sounds like everything is fine. So why worry about panic?

But wait a minute. In the same speech, Koskinen said, "We've told our local governments and state governments that they need to be prepared to handle emergencies on their own, since the federal government can't be everywhere dealing with every problem in light of the large number of problems that we are likely to have."

Those comments regarding a "large number of problems" are Koskinen's strongest to date. Is this a change of position or lack of one? Why share those concerns with a foreign audience but not with Americans? Maybe he doesn't want to panic us.

Ultimately, Koskinen doesn't know what will happen in the early months of 2000. Working phones and electricity don't rule out failures in production, transportation, imports and exports, local government, water or small business. If serious problems do emerge and people are unprepared, then maybe we'll panic.

According to an official training manual for Red Cross Disaster Action Teams, more than 300 studies show that three elements must occur concurrently for people to panic. Panic occurs when 1) individuals are in immediate and certain danger; 2) there are few or no escape routes; and 3) there's a lack of communication about what's happening.

The first two can be ruled out if there are no serious year 2000 problems. If there are problems and people are told to prepare in advance, then element three is diffused, and mass panic will be avoided.

If the government wants to avoid panic when problems occur, it should extend its preparation campaign to communities and individuals.

Although corporations are building contingency plans, few individuals and communities are following suit. If the problem is acute, many will be unprepared.

That lack of preparation -- and having a government that misleads us along the way -- will escalate panic and elongate the recovery cycle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 18, 1999.

Almost EVERYTHING is valued in relation to supply (plenty or scarcity). From beauty to intelligence, from arrid, unproductive desert land to fertile crop land, from a lot in the inner city (slum) to a lot on the hill...

Previously, in general, each member of a tribe or small community was valued, because the population was low. Now, human life is not nearly as highly valued because the population is tremendous. It's as simple as that.

This is because humans are still pumping out litters with no more forethought than the rats that share their garbage.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 18, 1999.

"This is because humans are still pumping out litters with no more forethought than the rats that share their garbage." A pity A@A that YOUR mother did her share. I hope you have been careful not to add to the oversuppy of rats...

-- (bb@bbb.bob), July 18, 1999.

I know I'm going to catch hell for this but...

I try not to agree or disagree with a person because of who he is, rather about the point he may be trying to make. I disrespect and even hate this doomer character because of his disruption and distraction from the points of the threads he's hi-jacked. However, no matter how coarsely and confrontationally expressed, his message about human hubris is one not often enough considered.

Also A, with whom I've disagreed in the past, makes a salient point about population and our attitudes toward our planet. I wish writers would take more care in their expression, as, for example, does Brian. My experience teaches me that sometimes more direct expression makes a point better than circumlocution and sugar-coating.

BUT, gentlemen, more often than not, the obverse is the case.

Ann,

Since we settled down to sedentary agriculture, people have always been the problem. That seems to be the moment most students of evolution highlight as the beginning of the imbalance of the symbiosis to which Brian refers. That era marks the first discontinuity and upswing in the population curve. The second was the Enlightenment/Industrial Revolution.

The third population discontinuity is not likely to be an upswing.

Hallyx

"Any cause is a lost cause without a reduction in population."---Paul Ehrlich

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), July 19, 1999.

Paul Ehrlich has been wrong on every one of his predictions.

-- (bb@bb.bob), July 19, 1999.