post Y2K : Paradigm shift : Survival of the fittest ? Which fittest?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Can we all agree/disagree on the following?
(1) Depending upon personal circumstances, location, and severity (1-10), the individual impact of y2k may vary a lot.
(2) A re-definition of "wealth" and "power" is to be expected. Having cash, gold coins, food, toilet paper or antibiotics at hand may have a completely different meaning than what it has today. Wealthy people today may not be nearly as 'wealthy' come Jan.2000.
Centralized power, in whichever form, would be difficult to exert and/or hold. Local community decisions would rule.
(3) A deflationary economy would be the predominant scenario worldwide
(4) Solidarity may 'make it or break it' for many who have not prepared accordingly.
(5) Loss of entitlement will be an issue.
(6) Human malice may flourish beyond today's "normal" expectations.
Oh, Mr.Sucks, no matter how much you may disagree with any or all of the above your input is still wellcome. But p-l-e-a-s-e do not disrupt. Thank you Sir.
-- George (email@example.com), July 22, 1999
(1) Delete "may" and substitute "will."
(2) Definite expectation. However, even in your wildest dreams I submit you are incapable of realistically estimating the methods and extremes that centralized power structures will exhibit to regrasp control. Utilizing international resources to preserve power will be the second, if not their first, thought. And before you dismiss this, remember that the American Revolutionary forces were succesful because of France's intervention.
(3) No brainer, although I might temper the "deflationary" with the idea that initial deflationary currency observations will be replaced with massive currency inflation or even official U.S. currency substitution. Can't describe the mechanism, just know that the gov.org would find the goal irrestible. Remember, it's not a level playing field now. Any 'new' aristrocacy of power will be limited by finite resources and a predominate inability to accrete power and resources, both due to minimal local resources and the definite ideological inclination to do so.
(4) Solidarity even for those "accordingly" prepared. Demonstrated inability to realistically appraise future circumstances will be the norm, not the expectation.
(5) Social Security will fail.
(6) Certainly individually and in small groups. The most dangerous manifestation will be from those groups already in existance with the pre-existing mindset, means and - above all else - the organizational skills to project power.
-- Woodpile (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 23, 1999.
I'd say that it was prety early to make any assumptions like that. (That wasn't too disruptive was it?)
As far as the actualy accuracy of the assumptions go I'd have to say that (1) might very well be the case. It seems only logical to conclude that geographical location has always played a part in the chances that your more apt to be a victim of some technological disaster. (2) would also make sense but your really making a long jump into assumption land with that one. I mean, what is wealth today? all the things you mentioned and then some. If your extrapolations of the future include widespread disaster then I'd wager to guess that life would go on in a "prison scale economy".., that is the same things we have now only less of them. Money, goods and services.
Geting on to your other points, (3) again your making great leaps into the future and when dealing with any economy it's usually the short term outlook that affects the present economy so I'd have to say that it's too early to say. (4)I'm not totally what you mean by Solidarity but yeah that is perfectly sensible. That is the way our lives have run for thousands of years in the past. The Romans had it down to a "T". Don't kill your enemies, buy them out. Now however America is a mixture of all those past countries rolled into one so I could certainly see how a micro-revolution could lead to such unified groups that stick together. (5) Loss of entitlement? Again that's kind of sketchy and I'd hate to make assumptions by what you mean by that before I respond. Maybe you could elaborate. (6) I think the scope of human evolution is hard to sum up into (bad) or (good) so I'd be far pressed to see any future scenario that didn't include a healthy portion of both. Now, if law enforecment goes unchecked and there is a localized or national sense of chaos or fear than I wouldn't doubt for a second that the "have-nots" will storm the Bastille so to say and take back what they feel is entitled. Murder, rape, arson, burglaries, assaults, theft, *vandalism, and gang related crime might soar in a case of a national emergency but I think it would take a building up period for those thing to heat, and also for the participants to make sure that Chaos does rule supreme, before it happens. A week? Two weeks? I wouldn't think much longer than that if we are really hard pressed. But OTOH I also think that many many people will undoubtably feel the tugging on their heart strings in time of need and reach out to others. I really feel that is the basic element of humans and when boiled down to our primal components that is what will rise to the surface. Being an amateur mountaineer I find that when in times of *extreme* life threatening duress people usually break down into two camps. Those that give up and die ( or let others [America] die )) and those that carry on with a noble effort. But to make a long story short, yes I could beleive that Malice could rise above what we have already been subjected to in the last ten years.
Again I'd like to say while your assumptions may be accurate I am still not convinced that our future will resemble what your depicting. Maybe it's the addictions of being at high altitudes that ruin my logical thinking but I still find myself amazed at the will of humans when set upon with a great task. You can apply that to Y2K or if your pessimistic kind then you can apply that to whatever doom scenarios you've imagined.
But then again I also feel that humans shouldn't take this trip through life too seriously and it's best to happen what is bound to happen, whether it fits in with your individual plans or not. For all any of us know humans might all gather together for a massive space exploration program in the next hundred years. Go where no man thought they could ever go before. It's not too late for any of us to pull out of the nose dive that (yes even I the perpetual Polly) will admit that we are in (to some degree).
Okay I'm babbling. Hope that wasn't too disruptive George, somehow I don't feel like my usual sarcastic self tonight. I'm out of coffee, that must be it.
-- (doomers@still suck.though), July 23, 1999.
No, Doomsuck, you are actually ... MAKING SENSE!! I can't believe it!
Dude, STOP with the coffee, start drinking orange juice or de-caffinated tea or something.
-- King of Spain (email@example.com), July 23, 1999.
If you post like that more often, I would actually evaluate what you have to say.
Will you explain #4 little more for me?
-- R. Wright (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 23, 1999.
Hey Suckie, Stay off the Java, you make some sense when you are straight!!!!!!!!!
-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), July 23, 1999.
So inverse universes really do exist......
-- lisa (email@example.com), July 23, 1999.
Ditto, Suck -- keep talkin' to us!
-- jor-el (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 23, 1999.
I'll be around and I will respect Sysman's call for a "truce". That's all for now.
-- (Doomers@suck.com), July 23, 1999.
Woodpile, thanks for the input.
Mr. Sucks, WHAT CAN I SAY!!!!!!!!!!! Lemme try:
(a) I feel honored, sir (taking for granted that the beast is tamed for good). I encourage your future participation. We GI's need to pass solid, thorough, acid tests such as yours. Let's see if you can live with our line of reasoning although not necessarily agreeing with it.
(b) Of course you were not "disruptive"! As a matter of fact you were VERY CONSTRUCTIVE sir. By the way, your comments reveal that you are expecting a y2k impact of some sorts. Despite the many caveats, what is your expectation from 1 to 10?
(c) Yes, it's speculative to make daring assumptions this early. We agree again (Geeeeee, I can't believe me agreeing with the ex-worst student in the classroom guys!!). Still, this intellectual exercise is not purely academic. It has its 'down to Earth' merits. Wellcome to y2k uncertainties in an ever-changing 21st. century scenario.
(d) "Solidarity" is like helping out others in distress or need. What's this Roman "T" deal all about sir?
(e) Loss of 'entitlement' means losing many things we take for granted, like social security, medicare, police protection, the dole... (not in my case but)
(f) No, you were not "babbling". You just were thinking out loud, off the top of your head like we all humans do, sometimes talking to ourselves (wives never understand that)
(g) Keep AWAY from that coffee, will ya!!!
Take care, sir
King of Spain, FLAME AWAY, jor-el, Lisa , everyone:
JUst what do we do with this guy????!!!!!!!!!
I suggest we take good care of him. He's promised to behave. He is behaving well and inputting better. He is obviously intelligent although he so far does not share our views! (although I'm not sure 100% about that). So... this is life
P.S.: Let us GI's 'behave' too, O/Kay? Peace on Earth. Live and let live...
-- George (email@example.com), July 23, 1999.