Chapter 1 - general intro to the book

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

I intend to describe the overall objectives of the book here, as well as explaining whatever assumptions I'm making about the reader. I assume that we don't need to explain what Y2K is all about

Any specific things you would like to see in this chapter?

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 05, 1999

Answers

I wrote and posted the first draft of Chapter 1 before most of these comments appeared. It's available here .

I'll read through all of these suggestions in the next day or two and incorporate them into a revised draft.

Thanks,


-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 06, 1999.


If the Internet crashes completely due to massive solar flares, cyberterrorism, dead power grids and other problems, then will the Internet arise like the phoenix or be dead as a dodo?

Will damage be so extensive that "kingly" remediation will be too difficult to accomplish worldwide?

I don't support Infomagic's scenario, but I still believe the Internet will crash big time.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), August 06, 1999.


Regarding assumptions about your readers...I think there are those who will be looking for a new How-To Manual (how to improve quality of life while dealing with a compromised infrastructure), and those who will be looking for the clarion call of an altruistic leader. I sincerely hope your book will include the latter. I don't believe in utopia, but I do believe that good leaders (and I mean "good" to be applied to their character, not their ability to attract and seduce followers) can awaken hearts, and arouse people to rise above and beyond what they thought themselves capable of. I would like to see Hope and a challenge to Love.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Ed,

I hope you and yours are well. I would like to see something like, how in the beginning we created a bad seed or footprint, and how because of the history of proliferation we were left with an intenetable (sp?) problem with no viable solution. The history of the problem is linked to the history of computing, from the old 402 accounting machines and board wiring thru the modern distributed systems. Sort of like the way cancer spreads by a design flaw in a cell which is then mirrored thru cellular division, leading to abnormal and uncontrolled (key word there) proliferation. A bad footprint or design, in even the simplest of system axioms can bring down the whole. So in effect chapter one is a post mortem.

Yours Truly.. Bill Lamoreux a.k.a. Slammer

-- Slammer (Slammer@Slamma.Ramma), August 06, 1999.


Hrumpfth!

And how about an examination of the suspension of the Constitution, the rights of it's citizens and how it may effect the political/cultural landscape.

And don't forget lousy leadership.

This is a time that doesn't require the government to be trashed, but it allows a more austere and libertarian form of Governing.

Throw out the liars and lobyists! It shouldn't be too difficult to do.

In a different Vain, i don't believe the technology of Today will never surface again. It is in the Vested interest that Technology is continually fostered. This is what is the liberating factor of any society. If there is a backlash at all out of Post Y2K it MUST be said that the LEADERSHIP is AT FAULT!!!!! That the corruption or lack of vision of the Government was riddling the efforts to remediate.

Public confidence in the Government can Fail, but not in society's need for technology.

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), August 06, 1999.



"...it's quite possible that Y2K will bring about a profound change in our culture, our values, and our priorities. This is, quite arguably, the most important aspect of Y2K..."--- Ed Yourdon (Humpty Dumpty Y2K)

I use the word "worldview" in my posts addressing this issue, which I have always considered the most important change possibly educed by Y2K effects. A disappointingly few TB2K threads have investigated this topic. Perhaps someone more organised than I can slog throught the archives and dig something up.

Perspective, attitude, paradigm, outlook, worldview --- by whatever name --- until this is acknowledged as critical, all we have to look forward to is getting back to "normal."

And is this really what we want?

Hallyx

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."--- Margaret Mead

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 06, 1999.


A minor nit: The curfews, hopefully, will be from dusk to dawn, not from dawn to dusk.

I believe the backlash will be against the leadership to start, but our software development "profession" will come under intense scrutiny as well. We had our chance to put our own house in order, as did the medical and legal professions, we blew it. Now we'll have state bureaucrats deciding who can code and who can design, just as they decide these matters for the construction industry.

-- John Zoltai (ed@knows.com), August 06, 1999.


It would help if I actually read what I was writing.

We had our chance to regulate ourselves. We didn't. The medical and legal professions did and still do.

Now it looks like the hue and cry will rise to provide regulations FOR us, instead of BY us. Yum.

-- John Zoltai (jtz@lanl.gov), August 06, 1999.


Two threads that address what we may gain from disruptions of significant magnitude: 1)that we cannot be sure how long it will take to remedy technological/ecological damage, and that the window of opportunity could close evem as we continue to hesitate/debate over how to proceed, and wait for proof beyond doubt that current practices are harmful and 2) that a person's worth in an organization or community will be as much about the kinds of relationships they build with the people around them, as about the particular value of the skills they can offer. These values have been virtually abanoned throughout the international megacorp culture, and every corner of the world that has joined the global marketplace. The harder people have to struggle to survive and the greater their sense of being betrayed by this culture of acquisition and power -brokering.

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 07, 1999.

Two threads that address what we may gain from disruptions of significant magnitude: 1)that we cannot be sure how long it will take to remedy technological/ecological damage, and that the window of opportunity could close evem as we continue to hesitate/debate over how to proceed, and wait for proof beyond doubt that current practices are harmful and 2) that a person's worth in an organization or community will be as much about the kinds of relationships they build with the people around them, as about the particular value of the skills they can offer. These values have been virtually abanoned throughout the international megacorp culture, and every corner of the world that has joined the global marketplace. The harder people have to struggle to survive and the greater their sense of being betrayed by this culture of acquisition and power brokering.

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 07, 1999.


Sorry about the double entry; I seem to be getting erroneous "resubmit" messages.

Your Nov. 2000 scenario, mentions lifting curfews in 30 largest cities in time for Christmas shopping. I can't picture retailing as usual so soon, given the other parts of your scenario. Since Y2K probably disrupted the sidewalk drug trade, I could see gangs turning to hijacking freight and running black markets of stolen goods, and pretty much controlling the streets at night, with law enforcement even less able to prevent that than they are now able to prevent drug trade. Perhaps Nov-Dec. is when officials hope they will have gang activity enough in hand that they will be able to close the remaining dislocation centers and return these cities' residents to their neighborhoods, and lift the curfews? Hardly a night goes by that some one isn't killed on the street in D.C. or Baltimore, right now. Even a level 2 or 3 might cause as many people as possible to leave until power and communications are more reliable. It would make more sense to round up all the known gang members and curfew breakers and put them is relocation camps for the duration, but I doubt that action would be taken. Even as I write it, I am aware how politically and legally incorrect it sounds...

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 07, 1999.


Ed said in Chapter One [I comment]

It's November 7, 2000 and the country has been reeling from 10 solid months of Y2K disasters. Unemployment has reached 40%, and people stopped watching the Dow Jones Industrial average when it dropped below 1,000.

[If you really believe this is plausible, you're already very close to an Infomagic scenario. The implications of 40% and <1000 are near-catastrophic, well beyond a major depression. 25% and <3000 would be plenty awful enough to make your point and more realistic.]

Half the nation's banks are closed, not because their computers failed, but because their loan portfolios turned out to be uncollectible when borrowers suffered their own Y2K problems. Power is still out in three major cities, all of which were abandoned after the first two month of darkness;

[Arlin Adams has stated elsewhere that a situation like this, BY ITSELF, might lead to dissolution of the United States, given the real consequences of such a disaster -- you might want to revise this or explain its implications in a few extra words.]

... meanwhile, rolling blackouts and power fluctuations frustrate any attempt to lead a normal life. Telephones work, and the Internet is up, but it is of little solace; nobody is in a mood to surf the Web or chat on their cell phones when they don't have jobs. Dusk-to-dawn curfews persist in 30 of the largest cities, though officials continue to promise they'll be lifted in time for the Christmas shopping season.

[I disagree. IF the Net stays up, it will be THE desperate medium of choice to try to figure out what the heck is going on in the world: the ultimate news, gossip and info source, even more critical than today. People's hunger for certainty in the midst of chaos will become more acute, not less.]

November 7, 2000 is Election Day, and the curfews have been relaxed so that voters can visit the polls until 7 PM. Democratic candidate Al Gore [1] has given his final speech, reminding voters that it was his technological expertise that helped lead the government's Y2K repair efforts during the past 10 months. In the spirit of FDR, he promises that his administration will launch a Hundred Days campaign, in which a proposed National Y2K Reconstruction Act will create a Newer, Better Deal for all Americans. Meanwhile, Republican candidate George W. Bush, Jr. offers his final speech over the radio, since the unpredictable power situation has made it difficult to count on television.

[This may be realistic, but underlines how critical the Net would become.]

He reminds the voters that the business of America is business, and that his first priority is a $300 billion emergency relief act that will put American businesses back on an even keel.

[If half the banks are gone, 40% unemployment and stock market <1000, there won't be 300 billion available to be proposed.]

He has no apology for the Y2K legislation that has prevented citizens from suing non-compliant business organizations, and he argues that once business is running smoothly again, people will have their jobs back, and they'll feel better about everything.

Would you vote for either of these candidates? For that matter, would you vote for any of the Senators or Congressmen who governed this country in the years immediately prior to Y2K? Perhaps Senators Bennett and Dodd deserve a vote of thanks; perhaps we should re-elect Congressman Stephen Horn, and Congresswoman Connie Morella. But if Y2K turns out to be anything close to the scenario suggested above, do we really want to re-elect the people who, through acts of omission and commission, got us into this mess? And what about our local officials? If you live in a small town, perhaps you're one of those Y2K activists who visited your mayor back in 1998, only to be told that the Mayor couldn't possibly make any public statements about Y2K because it would encourage the "criminal element" and foster unnecessary fear-mongering. If your town loses its water and electricity, and if its fire and police services are disrupted by Y2K problems that could have been fixed when there was still time, do you still want this Mayor running the show?

So what are we talking about here? Revolution? Overthrow of the government? No, probably not.

["probably not." OK, fair enough. What about "possibly"? I pick up the implication that financial depression will be accompanied by psychological depression and cultural passivity. Is this your intent? Actually, it is possible.]

This is not a situation akin to the American Revolution of 1776, when citizen farmers hoisted their pitchforks and muskets to fight against a strong, rich, well-organized monarchy. If Y2K does turn out to be a moderate or severe crisis, it's more likely that government will collapse under its own weight -- and the question for us citizens will be whether we want to help put it back together again, and whether we might make some major changes in the process of doing so. If President Clinton (who, in the normal course of events, will still be running the country on November 7, 2000) says to us, "My fellow Americans, I feel your pain -- but we have a small problem. The IRS can't issue any refunds, and it can't even figure out how much money you owe. So, for the time being, please just keep sending in your withholding taxes..." -- is it possible that we might collectively say, "No thanks"? If the government tells us that, notwithstanding its rosy promises about 100% compliance, the Social Security Administration isn't capable of sending monthly retirement checks, but that we should continue allowing FICA "contributions" to be taken out of our paychecks ... -- is it possible that we might collectively say, "No thanks -- and by the way, never again!"? Might we say "no, thanks" to the whole hodge-podge of laws, restrictions, taxes, and bureaucratic rules that have been heaped on us for the past 200 years? At the very least, it's worth thinking about.

[Very good, thought-provoking.]

Of course, things would have to be pretty bad before most of us paid serious attention to such a possibility. By analogy, most American citizens did not think seriously about independence and revolution in the days prior to the 19th of April in 1775, when Paul Revere sallied forth on his famous midnight ride; but events transpired to make such a choice not only possible, but inevitable.

[Yes and no. A lot of thought had been given to "liberty" for at least twenty years.]

If events of a similar magnitude transpire during the year 2000, it would be useful to have thought about the options ahead of time -- and that's what this book is all about. Humpty Dumpty Y2K does not assume that Y2K will lead to TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it), nor does it assume that Y2K will be a mere bump in the road. Both of those scenarios -- which represent extreme optimism and extreme pessimism -- are certainly possible, and both of them would render this book irrelevant. It's the moderate-to-severe scenarios between the extremes that we're concerned about here: what should we do if Y2K leads to a situation as severe as, say, the Great Depression of the 1930s?

[OK, but be sure your scenarios are not WORSE!]

Radical changes to American government took place during the 1930s, and perhaps that will be part of the American agenda (if not the world agenda) in the years following a severe Y2K crisis; we'll discuss those issues in Chapter 11. But there are many other things that may need to be re-examined, depending on how severely they are damaged by Y2K. If banking, as we now know it, is severely crippled, perhaps we should re-examine the concept of fractional reserve banking and fiat money. If power failures disrupt our lives for the first several months of 2000, perhaps we should re-examine the concept of monopoly utility companies and look for ways in which citizens can control their own basic infrastructure services. If the computer industry got us into such a terrible mess with Y2K bugs, perhaps we should look for ways to certify the products, processes, technicians, and managers of these companies. These and several other related issues will be discussed in separate chapters throughout Humpty Dumpty Y2K.

[Excellent]

As you read through this book, remember that it's not intended as a revolutionary manifesto. I don't aspire to write Thomas Paine's Common Sense or Karl Marx's Das Kapital.

[Fair enough, though this is what is actually needed from someone ...]

Most of us operate at the grass roots, and this book is primarily intended to provide some food for thought for us individuals who try to make some sense of the world in which we live. As Charles Bukowski remarked in Tales of Ordinary Madness ("Too Sensitive," 1967), "You begin saving the world by saving one man at a time; all else is grandiose romanticism or politics." On the other hand, it's important to note that this book does not represent the ideas of just one author; by posting the manuscript on the Internet, I intend to solicit feedback, contributions, and collaboration from thoughtful people all over the world. Whenever possible, those contributions and ideas will be woven into the text of this book. In the best of all worlds, Humpty Dumpty Y2K will be a book of the people, by the people, and for the people.

To accomplish this, we need to look into our own hearts and souls, and re-examine the way we've lived our lives for the past century. In North America, Western Europe, and a few other parts of the world, automation and technology have brought us luxuries and comforts beyond the imagination of our great grandparents; but Y2K may demonstrate to us that there was a heavy price to be paid for those luxuries. If we suffer a severe Y2K-induced collapse, we may have no alternative but to revert to a simpler, less-automated life -- and we may decide to teach our children that this is not such a bad thing after all. Even if government and industry don't change at all, it's quite possible that Y2K will bring about a profound change in our culture, our values, and our priorities. This is, quite arguably, the most important aspect of Y2K, and it will be the first of the key issues we'll examine in Part II of this book.

[To me, the major weakness of this is that it seems very U.S.-centric. The scenario does not include what is perhaps going to be a far bigger driver than anything else -- the effect of globalization break-down (supply chain) and the risk of international wars, etc., with the very real question as to whether nation-states (now, let's return to U.S.) can continue to project power to secure national objectives as before. This isn't merely "politics" because the answer will affect you intimately in Taos. Therefore, at a minimum, the book deserves one chapter on the implications of Y2K recovery for global systems.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 07, 1999.


I will just set forth some thoughts, since what I believe will take place is the very same human nature spirit that has raised men and women from slavery to freedom to prosperity time and time again, y2k or no y2k.

It was mentioned that there were 20 years or so in preparation for the founding fathers meeting for the purposes of creating an improvemtn to the Articles of Confederation, etc.

But no. There were a couple of hundred years of intellectual preparation for same...more if you begin with the Magna Carta.

No, there was a steady intellectual movement in the post Reformation era of clubs, Committees of Correspondence, etc. The Free Trade people in France and England, the movement that produced the genius of Frederick Bastiat', there was John Locke, and on and on. Not to mention,( but I will), that those principal men that sought to end the "divine right of kings" syndrome forever, and begin a system where the rights and the incredible genius that lurks in the hearts and minds of free men and women would be unleashed... were Christians, and knew the Bible and the principles contained within very very well.

Tyrannical government to them was only a session in the stocks, or a public flogging away.

It was not "natural resources", etc that made America.

We all know that Brazil and many other places, have much greater resources even today, that we did then.

We had the gift that is GOD's original plan for us.......Freedom from oppressive governmental interference with our creative abilities.

Only when mankind forgot (forgets) WHO is the supreme authority, does GOD interfere with the creative genius in us......see Tower of Babel and other illustrations.

No, whenever it appears that mankind is again thinking themselves to be GOD, or "a" god, we find that every attempt to be "one world" is thwarted.

Perhaps this is why we will experience such a disaster and face the need to again give credit to the correct source and start over.

LOCALLY !!!!!!!. Just as the founders sought to keep the LOCAL government the most important element in the lives of the (not "it's") citizens, by keeping the FedGov a tiny entitity without much funding, by keeping the most dangerous threats to individual freedom....(Declaring War, etc in the hands of those LOCAL congressmen who only went to office for two years, and who could easily be reached in their home districts by any enraged citizen.

It's interesting that Switzerland's President, I understand from some Swiss, takes a bus to work, is somewhat recognized by the people.

But their Cantons (states) are more important and the villages more important still. Of course, they also take their weapons with them when they leave the military and their currency is gold-backed (by 40% anyway) And the Swiss have the longest record of freedom ever recorded....

These things will happen again, because the people who aspire to leadership will again have "felt the whip on their own backs", will HAVE to prove to a very suspicious populace that the principles of freedom are understood.

The most hardship trained, sold out and deceived, broken and persecuted band of people in history, the Pilgrims, tested to the end with the storms, etc started completely from scratch in a hostile environment in November.

But becasue they had signed on with a socialist charter, 50% of them died the first winter.

When the charter was thrown out and it was ever person for themselves, prosperity began for them and the first Thanksgiving was their thanks to GOD for his wisdom and bounty.

You want free enterprise and good business practices? The Bible has it all.

We will survive, but it will begin locally driven, even if the net survives.

The worst yoke of all, government taxation and spying and suppression of human invention will be out of the way for awhile, and people will again discover freedom and the need for a deep spiritual basis for their lives.

Sorry about the space. Who is writing the book, anyway............LOL

Gee, will LOL disappear also?

IrishBobby

-- Bob Cadle (bobby1776@earthlink.net), August 08, 1999.


Actually, in honesty, committees of correspondence probably ought to be formed prior to rollover, so SOMETHING can be on paper before it is needed. So we can be doing the thinking in the comfort of our dens ands computer rooms (or dining rooms as in my case), rather than in the difficult times post rollover, regardless of the scenario. If we're talking about a scenario not quite Infomagic and not quite BITR, but plenty disruptive, my feeling is that I would rather have average folks from the I-net having a greater input into the reconstruction than the folks who bought their survival in Dec 1999, and now are manor lords of the New Millenium.

the reason for this is quite simple. In the 1700's the responsibility of the laird (lord of the manor) to the other residents of the manor, and the residents nearby, was understood, and taught from early childhood. Today's nouveau riche have NO IDEA of the noblesse oblige that will come with the lairdship of the manor, which they will be able to "buy".

Thus, again, the committees of correspondence will need to be fully set up early.

Chuck, feeling fairly historical (as opposed to hysterical, though the two aren't that far appart....LOL)

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 10, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ