In order for us to understand why people are reacting to Y2k in certain ways we need to understand what computers mean to our culture as a whole. I'm not talking about what they do. I'm talking about what they represent. Most people respond to how they feel about certain icons and symbols - not to what a situation or object truly is. In other words most people judge a book by its cover most of the time.

So what do computers mean? The easiest way to determine that is to look in popular culture and see how computers are represented.

Often they are depicted as the pitiless tool of Big Brother. Designed to invade our privacy and control our lives. In 2001 and Star Trek they are shown as completely fallable objects. Does anyone but me keep flashing back to Hal's voice these days? "I'm sorry Dave..."

So what do computers mean to you? How have you seen them shown in movies and on TV? What do you think they symbolize to you and the culture at large? Understanding this could well be a key to predicting the actions of the herd.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 13, 1999

Answers

Computers represent a new host infrastructure for the "other" (non- genetic) selfish replicator: the 'meme'. (Don't get all in a snit, I know 'meme' is a sensitive word on this forum. I'm not talking about the little "y2k is just another meme" debate here). Susan Blackmore in her recent book The Meme Machine has made an excellent case that genes are no longer "in the driver's seat" with respect to human evolution. Memes are. Meme like our big brains as host devices, however, computers are even better host devices for this selfish replicator (memes), and thus they are driving us (unconsciously) to develop computers to the point that they (computers) can serve as the primary memetic infrastructure, after which traditional homo sapiens will be superfluous from a memetic point of view, and we'll see a final showdown between gene-based life and meme-based life (supercomputers). Thus y2k is a kind of Alamo for gene-based life, if this threshold is crossed without irreparable technology infrastructure damage, non-human replicator hosts will soon dominate human replicator hosts (us).

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 13, 1999.

When I was at school & university computers were huge monsters that were still operated using punch cards.Calculators looked like minature typewriters & telex not the fax machine ruled.

For most of my working life I have been self employed as a papermaker.On average I send out 12 orders a month & order raw materials about once every 3 months...so no need really for a computer at work to keep track of things.

But I read a bit here & there and with customers worldwide e-commerce seemed to be quite attractive.So I bought myself a computer & started teaching myself.I've learnt enough to get by but I do not understand how computers work..nor do I need to.

I think this attitude is reflected in many of the baby boomers I know.We may have to use them at work but we don't necessarily feel totally at ease with them as they are "unpredictable".(LOL)

Don't ask us to show any enthusiasm for computers per se.We just don't want to know.Are they threatening? No.Are they demanding of our time & understanding & energy? Yes.

So what ?We shall just ignore them as much as possible out of hours.

-- Chris (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), September 13, 1999.

My kind of thread.

I would put the development of computer tech. in the same category of the invention of the printing press and the development of firearms.

These things are but tools used in wider social categories and can be used in productive ways as well as destructive. Productivity still assumes a certain value based on worldview. Like guns (metal, wood, nitrates) computers (electrons, plastic, and silicon) are not good or evil in themselves. They are an extension of human thought and interaction and are only as good as the human behind them. We will have computers forever, like guns, or the concept of print. The question is how we use them and to what degree do we rely on them.

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), September 13, 1999.

Computers seem to be a source of entropy for the human race when looked at from a information standpoint. The production of information is probably for all intents and purposes limitless; therefore the universal law of entropy holds, ie "delta s of the universe is positive". In other words positive or increasing entropy means increasing randomness, or perhaps more correctly *progressively more disorder*.

-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999.

Entropy Rules!

Wow! So many cool responses!

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 14, 1999.