I unforecast ...greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Let's make sure all this is properly recorded.
I predicted 50,000 dead in the US from combined hunger and exposure in the first months of 2000, basing that forecast on massive power failures and food-supply disruptions. Shortly before the rollover I said there was no reason to change the forecast. I now state that this disaster is no longer likely.
I do not disavow the prediction; I made it freely based on the information (or lies) available at the time. I do not deny the causality; if we have a multi-state power failure tomorrow, those 50,000 (or more) are immediately at risk. I say only that the casualties no longer are likely due to Y2k failures because the causation chain was not triggered. (This is a good thing.)
My second major prediction was for up to 300,000,000 dead worldwide. That forecast was based on a disruption to the seed, pesticide and fertilizer pipeline, all caused by power, transportation and fuel problems. I have no data yet that compels me to change that prediction, but so far the railroads seem to be running ok.
I apologize for nothing. I stand behind what I say and try to always say precisely what I mean. I would predict the same again, given the same information. For those who think GI means to want TEOTWAWKI: I am delighted at the results so far. "GI" is not "doomer".
For you other GIs, we are still happily prepped, along with many in our community, and nothing goes back to the store. We are overdue for a 9 earthquake, and are pleased with the emergency awareness we have helped nurture over the last two years.
We are still scraping against the iceberg. By mid-January we should have real news; by March we'll know how badly we're hurt; by June we'll be able to estimate the recovery time. We have a long way to go.
-- bw (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 05, 2000
Do you occassionally post under the pseudonym of "C. Gerges" Just wondering?
-- mic (email@example.com), January 05, 2000.
"My second major prediction was for up to 300,000,000 dead worldwide. That forecast was based on a disruption to the seed, pesticide and fertilizer pipeline, all caused by power, transportation and fuel problems. I have no data yet that compels me to change that prediction, but so far the railroads seem to be running ok."
Okay, so I'm still newish here and I don't know where you're running the figures from, and that's fine. This said: nearly a tenth of the world's population and still no reason to even slightly back off? It may still be early days, but wouldn't you at least crack a slight smile? Hell, if initial evidence showed I could well be wrong if I had made that prediction, I'd have one heavy weight off my shoulders at least for a little while!
-- Ned Raggett (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 05, 2000.
bw --- Lack of apology accepted.
since this is a discussion forum and not the Prophecy Club, neither I nor anyone else (I imagine) have staked their lives on the extrapolations, SWAGs, prognostications, or hand-wringing of any one poster. I'm not going searching, but any forecasts you posted were certainly criticized and FLAMED at the time -- and thereby "balanced:" if necessary; and intermixed with numerous pollyanna posts that already look cartoonish in their high hopes.
-- SH (email@example.com), January 05, 2000.
I have posted under 3 names on this forum. "bw" 99% of the time, my real name on 3 or 4 occasions, and one other (I think) for an exceptional case. Never C Gerges, sorry.
Ned - I'll be delighted to back off that one, soon as I see some good indicators. That event sequence depends on stuff we haven't seen data on yet - oil production, heavy-duty factories, etc. These are not embedded device, rollover, whoopee the power's still on kinda things.
The numbers are roughly: Three billion could be at risk if industrialized countries fail to deliver hybrid seed, pesticide and fertilizer. These often go to less-developed countries that might think they have no complex dependencies, but in fact they do. If we have a failure to get the crops planted, and if we guesstimate that 10% of the crop-dependent people starve, then we're looking at 300M dead.
Having warned of this chain-fragility for over two years, now, I'm gonna feel terrible if any of it comes to pass. It's a very burdensome thought.
-- bw (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 05, 2000.