Panic? What panic? There won't be any panic!greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
As the days go by and New Year's Evil comes ever closer, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no Y2K panic prior to 2000. People don't want to think, don't want to draw reasonable conclusions, and above all, they don't want to consider anything that might threaten their jobs, their future, and their way of life. The mindless euphoria in the stock market is a prime example of this.
It's like the old song I used to sing to my kids, "The Wreck Of The Old 97". We're all going down the grade making 90 miles an hour and we've lost our airbrake, only no one wants to admit it. They're going to party right up until the train jumps the tracks and smashes to pieces in the canyon below. I think this runaway train is going to crash hard around the middle of January and a heck of a lot of people are going to be saying, "How could this happen? Where is my job? Where is my food? Where is my life?"
-- cody varian (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 05, 1999
-- Zev Barak (email@example.com), November 05, 1999.
When General Motors lays off a couple hundred thousand, you might see a little motion, but it ain't no slam dunk.
-- dave (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 05, 1999.
yep and gartner said they are all going to do their shopping on the last few days of the year. and they are all going to look at father koskinen and the emporer and wonder how they could betray them like this?
-- tt (email@example.com), November 05, 1999.
-- tt (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 05, 1999.
I prefer empoorer myself. opposite of empowerer
-- nah (email@example.com), November 05, 1999.
Panic is not an appropriate response in most circumstances and it is not appropriate at present.
Panic really only occurs in the *presence* of a clear danger and the *absence* of a clear escape. It is very physical response to a very concrete circumstance. Panic is even fairly rare in wartime. Even during actual battle only a small percentage of soldiers give way to panic.
There is nothing concrete nor inescapable, yet, about Y2K problems. The reports we read here of minor glitches and foul-ups are nowhere nearly sufficient to cause anyone to panic, let alone people who are not directly affected.
As yet there are no bank runs, nor runs on food and other necessities. I think you are right to think them improbable before the new year. No one panics until the wolf is at the front door and all the other exits are blocked. And that is a GOOD thing. Panic is blind and selfish and immensely dangerous to everyone in its path, including the panicked. It only has value as a last ditch throw of the dice in favor of survival. In all other cases, it is a detriment.
-- Brian McLaughlin (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 05, 1999.
Brian: You're exactly right about panic; it's not a good thing and I'm not hoping for it to happen. I simply used to think there would be a general sense of Y2K danger in the public mind by now and there is nothing like that at all. I assumed that there would be an orderly process of general preparation so that most people would not be caught unaware in January, but this is simply not happening.
Therefore, if Y2K is really bad, an awful lot of people are going to suffer terribly. Grasshopper vs. ant.
-- cody (email@example.com), November 05, 1999.
Yeah Cody except that things have changed some since the "Grasshopper ~ Ant" fable. The grasshopper if i am correct was allowed into the ant's home and learned a lesson. 1/10 of the populations preps won't feed many in todays world. Maybe it's time for a new fable......
-- kevin (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 05, 1999.
I know people who are GI's who this week have told me that they have not yet started to prep. No one else who is any less a GI will be motivated to do anything. Everyone is asleep. You are right Cody and I'm there with you having expected to see some mooooovement of the herd. But, alas, virtually NO ONE is doing a darned thing even for themselves, even if they know it is a prudent choice.
I can't imagine the reaction when things finally fail. What will these people do? I hope to be quiet and out of the way as much as possible.
-- ..- (email@example.com), November 05, 1999.
If a professional survey were taken tomorrow, what percentage of the general population would recognize the name "Koskinen"?
5%? 10%? 25%? ???
What percentage would connect him with Y2K and the government?
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 05, 1999.
I've been wondering for some time whether the Y2K aware and prepped, should be more aware of its responsibility toward the vast majority people who are unware and unprepared. How do we avoid contributing to the liklihood of a late panic whilst still remaining true to our own convictions and actions on Y2K.
The call for early prepping and an early 'panic' was legitimate. But things have turned out differently. Hardly anybody is prepped on an individual level and at the business level they are still squabbling how and how much to be prepped without precipitating the very crises they want to avoid. Grassroots level community prepping is not widespread and very few people are involved.
The situation now is that it is too late for mass Y2K preparations at an individual level in the sense that it has mostly been defined on this forum, i.e. Stan's 14 days and upwards stockpiling. It is still possible for individuals to make preps at these levels if they move fast but it is not possible for the vast majority, and in particular the most vulnerable (the poor, the elderly, the sick). If there is a panic anytime between now and the end of the year, it will only favour a small minority of people. Panic, however it is induced or triggered, will do nothing to make the wider society better prepared to withstand Y2K disruptions or to resolve them. At this late stage it will make matters worse.
So my question is: how do we continue to focus on preparation as the only appropriate (and legitimate) response to Y2K right up to rollover whilst avoiding contributing to panic? In other words, how do we remain honest to ourselves and tell the truth about the increased uncertainties that could lie ahead without creating anxiety in others and thus contributing to fear and panic?
-- Anonymous because of spams (Tired_of_spams@flimflam.com), November 05, 1999.
Tom: 2% would recognise his name, maybe .005% would see a connection to y2k. Then again, only 1% has DONE ANYTHING for y2k yet, so...
-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), November 05, 1999.
There is an excellent version of "The Grasshopper and the Ants" on my website for anyone who is interested in seeing it, and the grasshopper does NOT like the ending.
-- MinnesotaSmith (email@example.com), November 05, 1999.
There will be a massive panic due to an unexpected and alarming event.
Although all is presently *swell* in Mr. Roger's neighborhood, a sudden trigger will cause the general populace to panic beyond sustainable control.
When will this happen?
I certainly don't know. But certain godly pastors have been given visions of America's demise. They have been warning people for YEARS! But almost no one will listen because the good times of prosperity are continually flowing into their stock market portfolios.
Like a thief in the night the sudden collapse of America will astound the world!
-- Randolph (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 06, 1999.