Here is a challenge for both hardcore Y2K optimists and doom-and-gloomers: What is the best argument that you can make that is actually opposite to what you really think will happen? That is, if you think that Y2K is TEOTWAWKI, what is the best argument that you could make that everything will actually turn out to be pretty much OK, or at least manageable? Likewise, if you think that Y2K worries are overblown, nevertheless, based on what you know, what argument could you come up with that Y2K could in fact it could turn out to be a really big problem? My intent here is that maybe we can promote better understanding of these different viewpoints. Please be sure and state whether you are coming from the DOOM-AND-GLOOM or OPTIMIST school of thought. (Middle of the roaders probably could do either or both?....)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 04, 1999

Answers

Guess I'll go first! I am a doom-and-gloomer (15 on the 0-10 scale.)

The only way that I can envision Y2K being under control will be due to the aspect that seems to defy any measurement: The human side. "Necessity is the mother of invention" as the saying goes, and being able to seize unforseen opportunities to apply workarounds, bandaids, etc., may be enough to somehow muddle through. And, even at this late date, I guess its not over until The Fat Lady Sings, so perhaps contingency plans could be at least sketched out....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 04, 1999.

Murphy's Law = DOOM

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@excite.com), January 04, 1999.

I just got more gloomy. Elizbeth Dole resigned as Red Cross Chairman.

CNBC report.

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), January 04, 1999.

Moving away from TEOTWAWKI. Introduction of the Euro was supposed to cause big problems. But so far so good.

-- TTR (seenit@ww2.com), January 04, 1999.

From a gloomer.

Whenever humans do anything they consider important, such as delivering a baby or driving to the supermarket, or betting on the Superbowl, they tend to over-insure themselves based on what terrible things statistically COULD happen.

They know that the chances of getting waxed on the way to get groceries are 1:10,000, but they wear seatbelts anyway.

The chances of a breech-birth are 1:200, but they skip the midwife or home birth and let the doctors and hospitals cover every possible contingency, anyway.

Considering the Year 2000 possibilities: the potential exists for everything to stop working, all at once, all over the world. Freezing, famine, pestilence, war, constipation, everything.

Will EVERTHING go wrong, just because it COULD go wrong? No. Fate gives us reliable statistics: probably only 3% of what could go wrong actually WILL.

(Good God, does that make me temporarily a 2? Ouch, that was hard.)

-- Lisa (nomail@work.com), January 04, 1999.

I'm an optimist sitting mid-point at a "statistically" rounded "5." Hummm.

HAPPY FACE: See, Y2Ks a bump in the road. Look at all the housecleaning and clutter clearing weve done in fixing the legacy code. This makes America stronger than it ever was before in the history of mankind. The Euro cant hold a candle to the dollar. All the gloom and doomers did was scare themselves and economically contribute their purchasing power to a new/old and now growth industry ... preparedness. Capitalism works. The government and the Fortune 500 corporations and our global banking institutions are all watching out for YOUR interests. Go back to watching Geraldo Riviera on TV. America, the Federal, is the greatest superpower on Earth. Uncle Sam wants YOU. We are God.

TEOTWAWKI: The greatest of gloom and doom nightmares: Global Thermonuclear War. Nuclear winter on the earths surface. 5.9 Billion people die. NORAD and other government bunker types emerge unscathed in 2005 to rebuild civilization in their own image. See, we made it! Now we can finally rebuild and repopulate the earth without liberal and democratic interference. We are God.

So. Whats a 5? Whatever we create it to be. Its all Divine. Especially when we think, feel and act that way. Inspiration works. Human Spirit works. Remember it. Whichever way the cosmic shoe drops.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 04, 1999.

Jack - I'm a .9 on the Infomagic scale - sorry - I just can't bring myself to do it - based on all my research and daily poking around on the net I'm becoming more doombrood by the week.

My best attempt for the smiley facers is "y2k will be prevented from causing a catastrophe by - - - Divine Intervention - - -"

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 04, 1999.

Infomagic is a pollyanna. It's too late to fix it. It's too late to prepare. We're all gonna die.

-- General Pollyanna (general@pollyanna.us), January 04, 1999.

Ok, I float between a 5 and a 10 depending on the day. Regardless, my wife won't let me be less than an 8 so we are preparing for the worse. Especially since I just talked to my 70 year old dad, who I first informed him last Feb, is now stocking up.

Best smily face arg I can come up with. I am not an expert in electrical power and no matter how hard I try, I don't think I will ever figure out a nuclear power plant. Given that Y2k Commissiners in several states have claimed that their power plants are halfway through testing and have not experienced any "show-stoppers." I can take it three ways. 1.) There lying. 2.) they are actually telling the truth and have a handle on it or 3.) They believe they are telling the truth but deep down are actually idiots who don't know what they are talking about.

Throw out 1 because it lacks reason. That leaves 2 and 3, Since I don't know how one works, I can either take the view of a bunch of lay people or an expert. I would choose and expert.

That is why I float down to a 5 every once in a while. Is that so bad if I still stock up on fuel and food and water? MB

-- Matt (Bonnermc@hotmail.com), January 04, 1999.

Ok, I'll try to take a wobbly run at this one for my first major post. After all, I've been doing a deer-in-the-headlights number on this for weeks now. But I'm going to take a different tack: I'm going to let my own personal confusion show through, and try it from both sides following my own inner arguments on the issue. Who knows, writing about it might just help me to see what I really think...

As a device, I'll use a couple of characters to represent the voices of Optimism and Pessimism. Hap is the optimist and DG is the pessimist.

Hap: I've been hearing some good news lately about the progress of the electrical utilities on Y2K preparations. The Ontario Hydro Year2000 chief is saying that their critical systems are all checked out and it's still a year away. And I talked with my electrical engineer buddy who says that the big guys are pretty much on track. His company sells process control systems and he sounds pretty confident.

DG: Well he would, wouldn't he? You called him out of the blue to ask about Y2K. Remember the hesitation in his voice as he measured his response? I'm sure he was thinking, 'How much can I really say here?' If I were in his shoes, I'd probably say something reassuring too. He probably didn't want to freak you out. I guess he figured that would be unprofessional.

Hap: Isn't it more unprofessional to lie?

DG: Can you think of any compelling reason for him not to? He's probably lying to himself. He's got a pretty profitable year ahead of him. Put yourself in his shoes. Y2K has got to be the business opportunity of a lifetime for a guy like him. If he's not worried then he probably hasn't looked up from the money pile to take a good look around long enough to plan for a hasty retreat with his dough. And even if he has, the sooner he gives up the fix effort, the sooner he gives up what he must be thinking is going to be his financial shelter from the storm. Besides, he didn't really lie. He even dropped a hint that he wasn't terribly sure about the little guys. He just said that he was pushing his people really hard.

Hap: So you're saying that he and the bosses at Ontario Hydro are sugar-coating it. Why would they do that? Doesn't it make more sense these days to come clean? If there's a real problem or if they don't really know, why wouldn't they say so?

DG: They're the pros, kid. Modern life's like that. You should know: you work with computers for Pete's sake. Technology has carved our economy into little technological protectorates. You become a widget expert so that you're the one that folks turn to when they want to know about that particular widget. If they ask you a question that involves your widget expertise, you don't pi** in your cornflakes by sounding scared or waffling on the answer. You've seen how they do it at the office: if the boss doesn't like the first answer he gets, he shops around until he hears the answer that he wants. All of a sudden he's got himself a new expert! Never mind that the support department ends up getting flooded with calls when his new project comes out full of defects. All the boss wanted was an unqualified yes. You know the saying, 'a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow'. Why should the Hydro company be any different?

Hap: Lives are at stake.

DG: Yeah well, where the rubber meets the road, someone's job is at stake and he probably isn't thinking about lives just yet. Do you remember talking to that fisheries biologist on the train? They asked a colleague of his to come up with some numbers on the cod stocks. He does his studies, gets the numbers and gives them to the manager. The manager passes them on to the deputy minister to take them to parliament. The deputy minister says, 'I can't show these numbers at question period. Get me different ones.' So the manager goes back to the scientist and says, 'These numbers are no good.' The scientist quits and his job goes to a guy who'll give them the numbers they want. Pretty soon, the cod fishery on the east coast is gone and the Newfoundland economy is in tatters. Newton's Laws of Political Motion: For every study there is an equal and opposite study. And the public figures will always highlight the most optimistic view. That's what's happening with the numbers on Y2K progress.

Hap: Ok, so maybe the number are optimistic. I just fail to see how this is going to bring about a complete social breakdown. What about all the poeple who are preparing neighbourhood contingency plans? The way I see it, even if there are breakdowns, we can use this as an opportunity to pull people together again after all these years of hiding from each other. Even just preparing for disaster will make people think like a community again. How can that be bad? And when things gradually start working again, we'll actually have a new support network in place and we'll have had a chance to start discussing how we got ourselves into a mess like this in the first place. Take Robert Theobald's or the Utne Reader's stuff. This could be our big chance to make a positive change.

DG: What makes you think you are going to get the kind of consensus that kind of a world needs? Try suggesting that in your own family. They'll think you're dreaming in Trek-nicolor. Lets face it, except for where people have had to rely on each other for survival, community spirit is basically dead. Your own family is spread across the country because they had to go where the jobs were. And now you want to try to convince a bunch of strangers, who really want to go on thinking that everything is fine, that the sky is about to fall and they have to get out there and help. They don't share your motivation. And even if they see the Y2K problem, they know they're not going to be able to prop up the electical grid, the food supply, international finance and trade, you name it. The best communities can do is to ride out a short hiccup in the system. We've taken too many people away from the simpler life to expect them to be able to sustain our populations for any length of time. What we're talking about here is a fluidity problem. Power, finance, and communications. Stop the flow of any one of them for a short while and we come up gasping for breath. Stop it for a longer time and it starts to have downstream consequences on the others that will cause this incredibly intricate organism to show the panic signs of a drowning creature. Ask any lifeguard and they'll tell you not to get too close to somebody who is drowning.

Hap: What makes you say that we're going to lose any of them for any length of time? I'm reading a lot of things that suggest that we'll see interruptions but the infrastructure is still there. I don't see the domino effect that you're alluding to. With the critical systems functioning most of the time, we suffer through some inconveniences and we get through them. We had a trial run in Ontario and Quebec with the ice storm last year. Some places were without power for as much as three weeks. Sure there was trouble. But we survived. In fact we're stronger for it.

DG: Where did people go?

Hap: Most went to shelters. A few stayed home.

DG: Where did the help come from?

Hap: The whole country pitched in.

DG: Were the ones pitching in going through their own nightmares at the time?

Hap: I think I see where you're going with this.

DG: I'll say it anyway: There are no friendly outsiders to pitch in when this hits! The strongest economies are the ones with the most technology that needs fixing. In fact, even though we're ahead of most of the G8 countries on Y2K, the government has tabled a change to the Emergency Measures Act and cancelled leave for the military and the RCMP from the end of December 1999 until the middle of March 2000. Leaving aside for the moment that this should give you some idea of the government's real confidence level at home, what happens when the less-prepared countries that we're so economically dependent on start to have their own problems? Ours and the other UN Peacekeeping forces will likely be too busy quelling potential riots at home to be of much help in a wider Somalia-like crisis abroad. If you extend the preparatory thinking of our military planners to the rest of the developed world, much of which is clearly less prepared for this than we are, then imagine what they are thinking of the likelihood of getting help from them in a crisis. And to top that off, our economy depends to such a degree on international trade and investment that even in these relatively untroubled times, a financial crisis halfway around the world was able to send a ripple into our system that we'll be shaking off for years.

********

I think that's enough. Sorry for taking your time folks. I needed to work this one out for myself.

-- Jeff Wilson (Hap_and_DG@imagination.com), January 05, 1999.

Thanks for all the responses thus far! And Jeff, I thought yours was as well done as any, highly creative at that.

So far, though, it seems that the hardcore optimists -- other than JBD -- have yet to take on this challenge. Maybe soon?...

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 05, 1999.

Everything was going fine, new business, big bucks etc. My brother kept saying "y2k". I couldn't understand what he was talking about until Wells Fargo Bank sent a 38 page booklet titled Countdown to YEAR 2000. In this book they are telling me that I've got to get ready and they are spending "$100 million. Before we are finished, we estimate that we will have reviewed roughly 60 million lines of computer code." Copyright cir. 1998. My brother pointed out "Before we are finished..." My bank is not READY. Think I'll go buy some supplies.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 05, 1999.

I'm a 9-10 on Infomagic's scale. When I started doing research I was a 2, remained at 5 stuburnly (denial?) for quiet a while, and now I stuburnly keep the 9 in my scale of 9-10 only because I'm an optimist.

My Polyanna arguement: I'm crazy and I need help. I'm imagining everything I've read and heard. I'll wake up from this nightmare in 2000 and my husband will pat me on the back and say "see? I told you so, we're ok. Let's go skiing."

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 05, 1999.

I believe, as I first heard it expressed by pshannon, that whatever happens will be different than anything we've imagined. With that proviso, I think that the standard of living of those who survive will be drastically lower than it is today.

As for the opposite view, "Life never affords one the opportunity to eliminate all problems; only opportunities to exchange one set of problems for another." - Hardliner

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 06, 1999.

Interesting exercise...

I guess I'm basically a Doomer, I think it will be an 8. As Hardliner suggests, although I have a pretty complex mental scenario of what I believe will happen, (as I'm sure we all do) I also believe it will all turn out in a way that NOBODY imagined. Reality seems to do that, huh?

So, now that we're a few days into "99" and the few 99 errors that were reported seem to have been fairly minor, I'll take this little challenge.

What would make it a 2? Human will. Yes, in this society, we are fat and lazy. And decadent. And kinda stupid. But any more so than at other times in history? Not really. And one thing about humans, we do tend to fight when things get tough. We're like cockaroaches in that way. We'll go anywhere and figure out how to survive. So maybe when TSHTF in a year, we'll pull together and get things fixed. Human will. It got us through the depression, and wars and all kinds of adverse conditions. Maybe we can make it so that this won't be a disaster...

(Naaah!)

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 06, 1999.

Doombrood - about a 9...

+ During the last four months of 1999, an unforeseen burst of activity - contingency planning, bare-bones manual alternatives and ingenious incentives (all, of course, noncompulsory) will bring about an amazing new alternate infrastructure, providing just enough power, telecomm and financial services to... uh... keep society together, slowly rebuilding the most critical services first...

+ Not every power plant will go down (and some will detach from the grid in time). Not all wiring and infrastructure will fry.

+ Clever homespun techniques will be employed - hydro/solar/wind, domestic animals drafted to pull food carts - river barges, ferries and zeppelins staging a big comeback - semaphore... Necessity is the mother of invention ?

(Yikes.)

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), January 08, 1999.

Coming from this scenario:

99Q1:   0.0
99Q2:   0.1
99Q3:   1.0
99Q4:   2.0
00Q1:   7.5
00Q2:   7.0
00Q3:   6.5
00Q4:   6.0
01Q1:   5.5
01Q2:   5.0
01Q3:   4.5
01Q4:   4.0

Which puts me around 7.5 (but I don't think it's staying that high for long), I can see a way to make the Pollyanna scenario happen:

99Q1:   0.0
99Q2:   0.1
99Q3:   1.0
99Q4:   2.0
00Q1:   3.0
00Q2:   3.0
00Q3:   2.5
00Q4:   2.5
01Q1:   2.0
01Q2:   2.0
01Q3:   1.5
01Q4:   1.5

For this to happen everybody needs to learn how to meditate, practice dharma and non-violence, become vegetarian, forget junk food and tv, make positive community contributions, and go on monthly week- long water/juice fasts. Also have a 6-month food and fuel reserve. That's a tall order.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 08, 1999.