'a' asked for a description of the future as seen through the eyes of a pollyanna. Since I guess I'm nominated, I'll give it my best shot. The request is not at all unreasonable, so long as you don't expect details. Only a fool tries to detail the future in calm times, much less y2k.

What I foresee is a world of delays, shortages, inconveniences, screwups, limited power and banking problems, and a reduction in both the quality and availability of medical care and communications. I see widely scattered but locally severe (up to Bhopal-level) crises worldwide. I see all of this made randomly better and worse by government intervention. I foresee some deflation, and a significant stock market hit. I expect key ingredients in many processes to go missing for a fairly extended period, forcing appropriate workarounds. I expect large and financially vulnerable groups of people (the elderly, those living on entitlement programs) to find themselves in untenable positions, with limited adaptive success. I expect high unemployment for several years minimum. I expect no shortage of chains of events that would amaze Rube Goldberg, and most of them unfortunate.

I expect the worst of the *causes* of the problems to be cleaned up within a few months, and the worst of the *results* of the problems to be mostly handled within a year. But I also expect continued snafus of newsworthy proportions intermittently at least through the end of 2001, both because of long-latency bugs and because of the failure of emergency patches. I expect our current standard of living to recover in no less than 5 years, nor more than 10. I don't anticipate the collapse or overthrow of any Western governments, but I do expect heads of state to roll.

I'm not making any attempt to quantify any of this, except that I don't expect any devolutionary spiral nor any significant dieback. I don't anticipate any economic impact from riots except very locally. I expect those who prepare to be noticeably more comfortable than those who don't, especially during the winter. I think there will be many fires, some out of control, in areas where power fails. I expect the US government to keep the lid on panic and bank runs barring a triggering spate of celebrity failures that can't be spun away. I think the likelihood of accidental nuclear war is essentially zero. I expect people to help one another far more than they do now, though it won't last. I expect the media to stay in operation, and go bananas with human interest stories. I expect the legal messes to be neutralized by no-fault type legislation.

I think we'll argue for the rest of our lives over whether it could have been better or worse, and the consensus will be that it was bad. I expect most people in the US to muddle through, impatient and frustrated, but getting by. A minority will lose nearly everything. As ever in chaotic times, vast fortunes will be made and lost, and mostly lost.

I emphasize that these are NOT predictions -- I have no crystal ball. This is just a description of what would surprise me the least. I realize my description covers a wide range, and I intend that it should. The future's not mine to see. I know I've touched on only a few of all the issues raised here.

Do any Doomists want to paint a picture, or has Infomagic covered it?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999

Answers

Flint - what's bothering me most is how the definition of a 'pollyanna' seems to be sliding to the darker side. Indeed, things will be plenty bad enough and people will probably die if it all turns out as 'good' as you thoughts above.

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), January 21, 1999.

Arnie, you hit the nail on the head. As the days and weeks and months roll by these Pollyannas will slither into extinction with futile attempts to mealy mouth their way into looking like they were correct all along.

Ray

-- Ray (rayl@whc.net), January 21, 1999.

My picture of the future hasn't changed a bit since I first gave it serious thought. I think I have been branded a pollyanna because I refuse to stop doing my damndest to evaluate every bit of new material on its merits, and of course to evaluate the merits themselves. By now, a pollyanna is anyone who doesn't accept all bad news at face value, or anyone who sees good news in anything whatsoever, or both.

If you read what I wrote closely, you'll see that even mild problems will fill the bill. I ruled out global catastrophe, allowing only for locally severe incidents.

Why do doomists always seem to feel that insults bolster their arguments? Come on, are you *that* insecure in your position? Why?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999.

Thank you Flint.

-- one so-called pollyanna (z@z.z), January 21, 1999.

I've got that feeling again that I've fallen into an alternate universe.

I've never seen Flint as a Pollyanna, and his expectactions as described above can only optimistically be described as gloomy in the language that I've come to think of as American English. They certainly describe a different world than any I've lived in and constitute TEOTWAWKI in my book!

In keeping with the earlier remarks about the scale sliding, it's very apparent to me that no one is saying (any longer) that there is not a problem. All that the argument is about now, is how bad is it going to be?.

I suggest that the appropriate course of action is to keep on "Ant-ing" it and let's do try and be kind to the "Grasshoppers".

It'll be too late to be kind when we attend their funerals.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 21, 1999.

Flint,

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I would say that what you describe here represents my best-case scenario. I would not say, however, that this represents the typical "pollyanna" scenario. To me that means "We'll fix it over the weekend." Incredibly, there are still people saying that.

I would be interested in Paul Milne's response to what you say here since he seems to be pretty down on you lately...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 21, 1999.

I just hope that what Flint describes is a worst-case scenario. The problem I have with his assessment is this: If we assume that there are failures to the extent that they cause what he envisions, where is the stopping point? What he decribes points to a systemic failure, and if it is systemic, as Dr. North is fond of noting, what is it that will suddenly and wonderfully stop that slide into martial law, the suspension of liberties, disease, famine, pestilence and war? If the systems are vulnerable to the point he describes, they are vulnerable to complete collapse. I hope he's right and I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

-- Vic (Roadrunneris@compliant.net), January 21, 1999.

Thanks Flint. I could use some cheering up.

-- Jane (Jane@doe.com), January 21, 1999.

Flint

I sure hope that you are prophetic, because I think that what you've described is the BEST outcome we can expect. Electricity will play the most important role in how well, or how badly things fare, methinks.

I do not relish the thought of an Infomagic type meltdown, though I am doing what I can in order to survive one, if that is even possible where I'm living. (8.5 miles to 7-11)

At least it's warm here in the winter.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 21, 1999.

That is the most amazing description of a "Pollyanna" I have certainly ever seen. That probably puts you at a 5 or 6 on the Washington DC Year 2000 Group scale.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), January 21, 1999.

THAT'S Pollyanna?? It sounds like what many would define as TEOTWAWKI. It's almost as reassuring as the recent news report that said "only" 38% expect serious social disruptions. I guess we do have a problem defining terms after all.

Or is this a Flint-impostor?? Will a 'real' Pollyanna please stand up? :-)

-- nemo... (nemo@deepsix.com), January 21, 1999.

Sorry, Flint, ol' amigo - "gloomy" is an excellent description of the scenario you posited. And, tsk tsk,
>> Why do doomists always seem to feel that insults bolster their arguments? Come on, are you *that* insecure in your position? Why? <<
I chide you for that "always". There are mudslingers in every "camp", all of 'em out to get a rise. I just read a post under a different thread that maintained that polly's "always" insult the messenger when they can't respond to the message. Frustration is understandable... but you're better than that, dewd.

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), January 21, 1999.

I agree with Drew and Vic. On another thread we were talking about phrases that we remembered and made us believers. I keep thinking of the people who posted last year and said that this would domino from a 6 to a 10. If 6 was the number, that was as far as I needed to go and the systemic nature of the problem would roll on to a ten. So if this is a pollyanna viewpoint, I need to buy more beans. Hey Flint, couldn't you be a little more optomistic? You are scaring me to death!!

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), January 21, 1999.

I don't mind sticking my face out. I'm an old man with no axe to grind. I hope I'm wrong, but the preponderance of the material we have, as near as I can decipher it, points to what I describe IMHO. I pray that de Jager is right and the dragon is effectively slain (but don't go too near just yet).

I enjoyed describing my expectations, if not the expectations themselves. It clears the air a bit about where I stand and hopefully will put my posts in a different light. My battle is NOT with the doomists, it's with the closed-minded, those who cannot change their opinions as the data stream changes character. I appear to battle doomists because they are more prone to the 'This is the way it's gonna be, you idiot' sort of presentation. Also because the totally clueless are nowhere to be found in a forum like this. My neighborhood, though, is full of them and our efforts here are met only with indifference. We haven't given up yet.

Hey everyone, prepare, OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 21, 1999.

Mike

I'm one of those folks who STILL believe that a 6 slids to a 10 VERY easily. As the props start poping out from under the system, there is all the more strain on the remaining ones.

What happens next all depends on how quickly we can add new props.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 21, 1999.

Methinks some may owe Flint, if not an apology, at least a mea culpa for, at the very least, misreading some of his posts. Because some of his comments are leavened by what is best described as an optimistic bent when compared to some of the posts here, he has been tarred with the same brush as, say, a Paul Davis. I think he is at some distance from Mr. Davis, and I applaud him for stepping up and speaking out in an atmosphere that is, sometimes, hostile and unrepentant when it comes to what some perceive as Pollyanas.

-- Vic (Roadrunneris@compliant.net), January 21, 1999.

Flint, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Today as I was reading about the huge trade deficit, I couldn't help but wonder what will happen to our ability to import come 2000. Even the most optimistic Y2K people say they are concerned about "all of the other countries." Even if by chance the US gets by with a scenario like you have described, what about the products that we import? Oil, clothing, shoes, coffee, tea, rubber? The list is endless. You touched on shortages, were you including imports?

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), January 21, 1999.

Finally, Flint's name has been cleared ;) Now lets clear Paul Davis's too. He's also a middle-of-the-roader.

I think the definition of Polyanna has been misused the same as TEOTWAWKI.

Bump-in-the-roaders--------------Middlers---------------Doomers (Polyannas) (optimistic realists) (pessimistic realists)

How's that?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 21, 1999.

oops...didn't come out right.

Bump-in-the-road = Pollyanas - - - Middlers = optimistic realists - - - Doomers = pessimistic realists

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 21, 1999.

Very good post Flint.

Thank You,

c

-- c (c@c.c), January 22, 1999.

Flint,

Thank you for the post. Again, the problem seems to be a case of semantics. What does TEOTWAWKI mean? Your scenario sounds like the end of the world as *I* have known it. It's the not-as-bad version of TEOTWAWKI, but it is still TEOTWAWKI nonetheless.

The "Pollyannas" on here and the self-labeled "TEOTWAWKI" folks on here have more in common than they thought: both believe in personal preparation for more than just an "over-the-weekend" "bump-in-the- road" scenario.

Flint, by preparing for your scenario, you'll have a much better chance of survival and getting out of the city if the infrastructure falls hard. It's looks as if almost all of us on this forum are preparing for something serious.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 22, 1999.

Thanks, Flint. Yours is a reasonable assessment of an uncertain situation. I generally share your expectations. Whether that scenario constitutes TEOTWAKI is an intriguing question. Optimists vs. pessimists? Half full/half empty?

The other observations are interesting. I've also noticed that for some time, essentially no one credible is saying that nothing will happen. So if the truth can be found midway between the extremes of opinion, that midpoint is sliding toward the nasty end of the scale.

I had been using the 30 day camping-in-the-house scenario for planning, (with a few tricks up my sleeve. Paranoia runs deep, eh Arlin?) But now I find myself confused, My expectations oscillating wildly from day to day.

So much smoke. How big IS that fire...?

After reading the January 1999 newsletter from the International Association of Emergency Managers (devoted to Y2K. See link on it's own thread), I'm coming to the realization that no one knows what will happen.

DUH, you say. But I mean _no one_ has a clue yet what is likely to happen. Not FEMA, or the NG, or Clinton, or Kosky Or Milne or Yourdon or Infomagic or (fillin in your favourite Pollyanna here).

I think this why I liked Father Ed's book in the first place: his approach of describing a wide variety of possible outcomes and some appropriate precautions for each.

Ya know, I read that book over a year ago. Think I'll read it again.

After I get home from Sam's Club....

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

Flint,

Whats in a definition? Plenty.

For me, extreme TEOTWAWKI is no less than global thermonuclear war. Less than that, we can all muddle through. Better in some places, less in others. Its all local, as is preparation.

Flint, your description counts as a 5 with me. Definite middler of the roadsters assessment.

Lewis, if I were you, Id at least PLAN for a six months at home camp out. Then the unexpected wont catch you with your campfire down. A vegetable garden planted this spring would be good pre-Y2K learning curve and preparation experience, in case your local area, slides into the darker side of Y2K.

Diane

*Create Community, Prepare 2 Share, Be Y2K Aware*

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

Filtering through the deluge of information/misinformation/disinformation these past 9 months (began prep May 1998) has pushed me to the psychological edge several times. Once again I strain my neck to peer into the valley below...

Flint a pollyanna? Help! When did the scale shift, & why wasn't I informed?

I agree with Chris: Bump-in-the-road = Pollyana. Flint isn't a pollyanna. This is a joke, right?

Flint: Thanks for the many great posts, & kudos for remaining strong in the face of countless attacks.

-- Nobody Knows the Extent! Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), January 22, 1999.

We still haven't seen Paul Milne address the subject of this thread, have we? Even though he's posted to other threads since this one started, and has shown his impatience when people don't respond to him immediately.

I find this very interesting, and another small window into the conflicted nature of his character...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 22, 1999.

Like Gayla, I'm worried about petroleum (after power). I'd pay big money TODAY for Flint's scenario, but the oil factor is...literally (sigh) what runs our world and economies.

The wheels (and jets) of government get first shot at petro. If our supply is cut in half, that leaves very little for the private sector; I think I read somewhere that American govts (all types put together) consume half of the nations' supply.

Flint, what's the petro supply look like in your visualization?

-- Lisa (lisab@shallc.com), January 22, 1999.

Lisa:

Answers, $1. Answers requiring thought, $2. Correct answers, $10.

Way back in a prior life when I did surveys (after I was a plumber and before I was a programmer, sheesh), I did a study intended to identify government energy use, with an eye to reducing it. This was during the oil crisis. Energy in this case meant natural gas, oil, and electricity.

I found that the government *directly* consumed about 0.1% of total energy. Indirect consumption (that is, consumption by private industry working under government contract) was a close match, percentagewise, to the ratio of total government contribution to the entire economy. So if the governments at all levels spend, say, 1/3 of all the money spent in the economy, then 1/3 of all energy consumed is ultimately paid for with taxpayer dollars.

My guess (and it's a guess, so it's only $2) is that immediate availability of petroleum products depends on an awful lot working at least a little. There's drilling, transporting, refining, distributing, etc. I don't expect our sources to dry up, but I'd be very surprised if we didn't experience some period of shortages and rationing, which of course complicates everything else.

In the longer run (at least a year or two) we could reactivate a lot of domestic wells that still produce, just not economically right now. After that, we'd have less of a shortage, but much higher prices (at least relative to other prices).

I hope it's clear from my expectations that I believe we'll soon be very thankful for many many things we currently take for granted. Grateful for a loaf of bread instead of disappointed that we only have 30 different bread choices. Attitudes will change.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

Diane's absolutely right, nuclear war is the absolute worst than can happen (- WTCH -). Nothing else even close. Biggest danger of y2k would be if it makes nuke war even slightly more likely.

Flint, you're a cool guy.

Think like a grasshopper, prepare like an ant

-- Runway Cat (Runway_Cat@hotmail.com), January 22, 1999.

Runway cat, you think more globally than I do. To me, the worst that can happen is to come down with something that *used* to be trivial to cure, and wasting away painfully because the cure is no longer available.

Go to any old graveyard and look at the lifespans. Hell of a lot of graves for those under 20, and they died of causes nobody dies for anymore. There was no thermonuclear war or other Hollywood spectacular disaster. They just died young for lack of the required technology.

The Spanish didn't conquer the new world with horses and swords, they did it with disease. Missionaries contributed as much as anyone else. I didn't say so explicitly, but I expect the average lifespan to show a distinct dip worldwide for a couple of years. Look to the state of your health. It's unspectacular and dull, but it's life and death.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

"Grateful for a loaf of bread instead of disappointed that we only have 30 different bread choices"

WHAT!?! I'm not going to have a different design toothbrush every two weeks??!? Life will NOT BE WORTH LIVING! LOL

pshannon: Flint can be articulate at times and I like the guy :), but be careful you don't become intolerant of Milne's views and not just his delivery.

-- a (a@a.a), January 22, 1999.

I agree with 'a', Milne's views must be taken seriously. I don't feel those views are well served by Milne's highly selective, abusive, and spin-doctored (to understate it) approach. I credit Milne for my views more than anyone else, in the sense that if catastrophe must be justified with a bias that abandons all rationality, it isn't all that likely.

We probably aren't making good use of bandwidth debating the cause of that bias. We've seen that when he's wrong, he runs away. When he's challenged, he runs away. When faced with serious questions, he replies with insults. His presentation isn't purely a matter of style, it's a necessity to mask intellectual bankruptcy.

But if he's talked anyone here into preparing, this is very good. I believe (pure opinion) that preparation is essential. I have absolutely no idea whether Milne's sheer glazed-eyes lunacy has convinced more to prepare than convinced them that y2k is the province of nutballs and can safely be ignored. It's hard for me to picture a DGI reading some of that drivel and being converted, but what do I know?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 22, 1999.

Where would TEOTWAWKI fit in the following:

Bump-in-the-road = Pollyanas

Middlers = optimistic realists

Doomers = pessimistic realists

And what would actually be the end of the world as we know it?

What has to happen?

I'm also waiting to see if any Doomists are going cover their side.

-- Enoch (knightofyhwh@hotmail.com), January 25, 1999.

Barring nuclear war and something like the Black Plague, I think that the social unrest (riots, etc.) will be the big problem in the first couple of months. They will soon tire and settle down into the bread lines with everyone else. Hopefully this will be contained in the cities. We in the rural areas will fare much better, especially if we are prepared and have survival skills such as growing our own food. After the initial shock to the ramifications of roll over, I think we will go into a depression worse than the Great Depression of the 30s. As a people we will be very dependent upon the gov't to provide "make work projects" such as WPA. Hopefully within this time frame of the next 6 years we will elect some people with integrity and guts to do the right thing. Yesterday I drove 20 miles to WalMart to buy pineapple juice. My husband goes thru a large can a day. They were out of it and I was really ticked off. Then I thought to myself, "you better get used to it" as there will be many days where things will be unavailable or you chose not to risk life and limb to obtain the item. At the very least, I feel that our life style is going to change greatly and I am not sure that is a bad thing after the dust settles. However, I would stock up on Prozac as there are so many things that are going to be just one big frustrating pain in the ass. Especially in billings, or any kind of thing that requires record keeping. The simplifying of your life now should be one of your top prioites of preparation. We have two monthly bills, power and telephone. We can do without both and may have to. Its the insurance and taxes that concern me in that they could really get screwed up. But whatever happens in your life, your mental ability and your mental health, is what will be a major part of how you live and survive. You MUST PREPARE for a long enuff time so that you can sit back and study the situation and make decisions. If you are out standing in the food/water lines and reduced to basic hour to hour, day to day, survival, you HAVE NO OPTIONS.. You always want options. Options/alternate choices are your basic survival mechinisms. Rambled enuff.

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), April 10, 1999.