Assumption for this thread: There will be a severe impact from Y2K, where severe is anything 9 or greater. You dont have to believe this for real, just be willing to accept it to facilitate discussion of the following two related questions:
One: Do you think it will be possible to get back to normal after a severe Y2K impact? If not, then have you thought about what would eventually constitute the new normal?
Two: What is your preference for post-Y2K normal similarity to what we have today, or something substantially different?
Two cents:
I think that there will be a correlation between Y2K severity and the extent to which normalcy returns eventually. The less the severity, the greater the odds (and quicker) a return to normalcy becomes. If we are talking something off the scale, like Infomagic, then a return to normalcy becomes much less likely, if not impossible. There may exist a point of no return, perhaps at the 10 level. To some extent this may depend on our location. Someone once posted that all TEOTWAWKI will be local, an interesting remark. Also, answers may vary not only by country, but also by sector in general, economies may take the longest to return to what we think of as normal now, for example.
When I consider the alternative, which is not getting back to todays normal, it is almost impossible to picture this new normal in a detailed and meaningful way. Also important is if it would be better or not comparatively. This leads into the second question, regarding preference. I would think that a majority would favor a return to normalcy in todays context. Human nature. People do not like change. This is not to say that what passes for normal now is perfect. It isnt. There are many things that I think would get wide support to be changed. In order to prefer something else though, you would need a clear idea of what that something else is, and understand the ramifications of it becoming the new normal. I dont, but perhaps some of you have given this a bit of thought.
What do you think regarding getting back to normal after a severe Y2K?
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 09, 1999
Answers
The institution of shorter supply lines for your necessities of life,
and a whole new cottage industry to facilitate these supply lines is
in order.
People will have jobs that haven't been around in years. If it truly
is an Infomagic scenario, the grid might never come back up,
effectively putting us into the late 1700's. Farriers and groomsmen
will become a "new" business, as well as blacksmiths, wheelwrights,
coopers, etc... but that is if there is a total collapse.
You will not be able to go down to Wal-mart and buy your $100 Nikes
from China anymore. There will have to be industries brought back to
our shores that left for cheap labor countries many years ago.
I notice where everything I buy comes from anymore. Very few items
say "made in USA". If Y2K hits hard, these items from foreign shores
will be unobtainable.
The BITR scenario is a piece of cake. We spend the next 9 months
sorting out all the bad data from our personal records, transactions,
and accounts, and go back to the "Joe Sixpack" mushroom routine.
But IMHO, if 010100 is a category 5 storm, we may never get back to
any semblance of normalcy...
gettin' a drink...
The Dog
-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 09, 1999.
I think we will go back to normal. The time it takes to get there is
dependent upon the severity. Unless there is a massive death toll,
the same knowledge base will be available as well as the stupidity
and greed. So it will just be a matter of time before we rebuild. I
would like to think that things would be different- strong
communities, self-reliance, whirled peas:-) Not much chance though.
Without getting overly philosophical, I think there is a limit as to
how far we can get in this physical form. But it's a hell of a lot
farther than we are now. There's always hope.
-- (rcarver@inacom.com), September 09, 1999.
I would imagine that if Y2K is more than a 9 but less than a 10 then our society would eventually return to a resemblence of itself but this would probably take a very long time perhaps 20-30 years.If Y2K is 10 or greater then we may see an end to democracy and the rule of law.My only soulution to a 10+ and this may be flaky: since the GI's are well-armed and well-prepared perhaps they could take over a city and re-establish democracy and the rule of law.A city of 50,000 could field an army of say 5,000 and the purpose of this army would be to kept out roving gangs and despotic elements.This city-state could also serve as a demonstration community to the rest of the world,that democracy and decency don't have to die with Y2K.
-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), September 09, 1999.
One would hope that the "normal" we return to (assuming we need to
make the trip) would leave us wiser for the journey.
Just my 2 cents.
:)
-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 09, 1999.
hopefully not; not a chance - not desired - some won't let it
happen...
of course - 'Nirvana' [Galt's Gulch]
god, no!!!
of course - 'Nirvana'
one would hope that the human spirit is more Heroic and upward
looking than to presume that the status quo is all to which the race
might aspire;
we ARE worth more than the drivel the 'masters' allow us to possess,
consume and experience;
Life, in its most full and complete definition, is more Precious than
to either perpetuate the current mess, or to come back to it again
after a collapse;
when, and only when, Man is able to achieve his Highest aspiration
without being hindered in his effort by the likes of politicions,
bankers, thugs, tyrannts and dictators, - only then will a system of
social intercourse be worthy of the name 'Human society'.
I will do all in my power to accomplish that ideal.
I stand ready to join with those others of like mind and spirit who
also can see farther than their grasp...and who know the definition
of, and who desire to taste the fruits of true Freedom.
-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), September 09, 1999.
I do believe most American GIs believe that y2k will cause temporary
disruptions, (perhaps severe, but temporary,) and then we will all
return to our present status quo. The rich will be rich, again. They
will read Dilbert over their Lattes and their children will have
beanie babies.
I do not believe that these GIs are realistic about the
prolonged and massive impact that y2k will have on the rest of the
World and how this will bring about changes that will roll across our
shores. We are not going to be able to sit in our living rooms
enjoying "normalcy" while the rest of the world is suffering. The rest
of the world is not going to let that happen.
-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), September 09, 1999.
The one thing Y2K will not be able to kill is the ideas birthed by
our present technological revolution. If Y2K is bad, there will be
massive loss of live (mine included), but there will be enough
surviver geeks to patch technological pieces and scraps together and
eventually get enough of the system back up here in the US to support
life (farm technology, telecom, sewer, water, health system, etc).
What geek survivors remain will be of high value to help other
countries piece their technology scraps together. Once a basic
system is scrapped together, the survivors of the world will rebuild
in ways we can not imagine.
A world with less population will put less stress on the planet. The
fragility of our interdependencies will be revealed and our systems
strengthed. Geeks will be regulated and supervised and highly paid.
They led us into this mess. And they will lead us out of this mess.
-- Leslie (***@***.net), September 09, 1999.
Systems are funny things--human systems are ever odder. We don't know
what sociological curve balls might be thrown during some kind of
recovery. Anything can, and often does, happen. We only have a
limited vision of what could be, but it might turn out to be
something else, entirely.
-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 09, 1999.
Mara,
Keep writing. I'll keep reading.
Sincerely,
Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 10, 1999.
[My first attempt was not intelligible... may I be allowed to do this
again, please?]
One: Do you think it will be possible to get back to normal after a
severe Y2K impact?
hopefully not; not a chance - not desired - some won't let it
happen...
If not, then have you thought about what would eventually constitute
the new normal?
of course - 'Nirvana' [Galt's Gulch]
Two: What is your preference for post-Y2K normal similarity to
what we have today,
god, no!!!
or something substantially different?
of course - 'Nirvana'
one would hope that the human spirit is more Heroic and upward
looking than to presume that the status quo is all to which the race
might aspire;
we ARE worth more than the drivel the 'masters' allow us to possess,
consume and experience;
Life, in its most full and complete definition, is more Precious than
to either perpetuate the current mess, or to come back to it again
after a collapse;
when, and only when, Man is able to achieve his Highest aspiration
without being hindered in his effort by the likes of politicions,
bankers, thugs, tyrannts and dictators, - only then will a system of
social intercourse be worthy of the name 'Human society'.
I will do all in my power to accomplish that ideal.
I stand ready to join with those others of like mind and spirit who
also can see farther than their grasp...and who know the definition
of, and who desire to taste the fruits of true Freedom.
[Thank you!]
-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), September 10, 1999.
I think over time we will see a severe breakdown in society from
which it will take decades to really recover. I would hope we think
about what to keep and what to throw away. I do believe, as has been
said, that it is human nature to want to return to what we already
know.
What scares me is that any move to create something new will take
personal courage and leadership... something we have not seen much of
during this debacle.
Clearly we are going to have major problems when Joe sixpack finds
out he has been lied to, is in shock, and now in the dark with
nothing to eat.
Not exactly a happy constituency. And can anyone please tell me what
platform "Mr. Information Super Highway" is going to run on?
The gov't policy of "Let's not tell them" may have protected big
business but they sure have shot themselves in the foot when it comes
to the American voters.
How do we recover from this? "We" probably don't... but I am
beginning to teach my young kids things about life they shouldn't
have to learn at ten years old.
Keith
-- Keith Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), September 10, 1999.
One: Do you think it will be possible to get back to
normal after a severe Y2K impact? If not, then have you thought
about what would eventually constitute the new normal?
Given the assumption that we are looking at a9-
11, a LOT depends on HOW FAST the decline to that level is. If it is
a FAST (measured in days-weeks-1-2 months) then I hold a lot of hope
for a return to something resembling what we have now in terms of
tecnology, with some modifications in societal structure, but in
about 10 years.
If it is a SLOW (measured in months-1-2 years)
decline, I don't hold quite the same hopes. A SLOW decline gives the
ravening hordes a chance to develop a Neo-Luddite component which
would pretty much cause the destruction of the underlying
knowledge/equipment/technology infrastructure that keeps our
technology running today. THIS, coupled with the prolonged loss of
light and power in general would cause us to receed into the past to
take a VERY LONG time to come back. If you don't like the picture
here, make sure you have access to a large University in an area
served by Hydro or Nuclear power. I believe THESE will be the 2000's
version of Monasteries in the 11-12-13-1400's.
The NEW normal will (if the fall takes long enough)
probably look VERY FEUDAL, with (Hopefully) a better handle on
Noblesse Oblige than our leaders have today, and a very strong
Laissez Faire tradition. (OK I'm an optimist, too).
As for Question 2, do you want a book??
Chuck, a night driver, and a night reader
-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 10, 1999.
Thanks to all of you who provided thoughtful answers.
Stan: Whatever happened to you? Still awaiting an 'e' response from
you per our previous conversation.
Perry: "politicions, bankers, thugs, tyrannts and dictators" - Hmmmm,
seems like we humans are our own worst enemies huh!
Chuck: Speed is a critical factor, yes. Thanks. If you want to write
a book for part two go ahead, just stay on topic or I will be forced
to ask the sysop to delete your post :)
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 10, 1999.
"regarding getting back to normal"
Good topic! one of the most interesting facets of y2k's risk
management challenge.
As usual its conjecture at this point, I find myself open to a
*different* normal as long as it is comfortable. Lately, as things
move forward I find myself thinking about the comfortable part more
and more. Anyone else?
-- (sibola@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.
Comfortable? Are you being facetious?
Perhaps you are not. I put no such qualifier on a different normal.
It is interesting to me that you do, and that you find yourself
dwelling on that aspect more and more. Maybe this is necessary to
you to some extent just to get through the rougher spots as you
anticipate them.
But suppose reality dictates that "comfortable" isnt in the cards as
part of the new normal? You may not be "open" to this, but do you see
this as a realistic possibility of a new and different normal?
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 10, 1999.
All successful revolutions have entailed a substantial death rate (my
memory is hazy, but it's something like 15% of the population within
3 years). So it would seem that for the post-recovery to be very
different, we'd need a LOT of deaths. And I'm not talking about
recovery to anything like what we know now, I'm only referring to
some reasonably stable social condition of whatever description.
Somehow, I doubt the survivors would be content.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.
Hi Flint. China and India have over one third of our planet's 6
billion inhabitants, and from the reports I have heard neither are
very well prepared for a severe Y2K impact. As a result, do you feel
that in these two countries there will be, as you wrote, a LOT of
deaths, and subsequently, if you accept this premise, is it
reasonable to conclude there would be global ramifications to this
also which would be a definitive factor in what becomes the new
normal?
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 10, 1999.
Rob:
My crystal ball is pretty cloudy here. I think that the populations
of India and China are largely agrarian anyway, and this isn't high-
tech farming either. Their governments may be unprepared for y2k
(whatever that might mean in practice), but I doubt the bulk of the
population would even notice one way or the other. So I doubt that
the form of government would change in either country. As I've
written before, I expect a few heads of state to roll, but no
governments to fall per se. This of course gets hazy in banana
republics, where government is itself kind of hazy outside the
capital city.
I don't expect global starvation to exceed current levels by much
anyway. And unlike revolutions, it makes little sense to start
systematic purges of huge numbers just because computers are down. At
most, if y2k is very serious in some countries, it might provide an
opportunity for a strong minority population to take over. I can't
predict.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.
Flint: All of the crystal balls are cloudy, which is what makes this
kind of discussion interesting (to me, anyway). Just because
something makes little sense doesn't mean it can be ruled out though,
if history is any judge.
I disagree about the level of starvation and expect, given a 9 or
greater, that they would increase dramatically, especially in those
places heavily dependent on imports which would be threatened by
breakdowns in global transportation supply lines. If the disruptions
significantly outlast local food inventories and production capacity,
it will not be pretty. Hunger may then become a great motivator.
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 10, 1999.
The "normal" of 2009. 2019 will be something quite different than "normal" of 1999. My crystal ball keeps changing channels : largely web-based commerce, the malls have died, to Depression Redux, to Ecotopia, to widely reduced population plowing with oxen and hand scything grain : 1800 revisited, to feudalism and yet combining odd elements of all of these. Whatever scenario, a general trend sees petroleum constumption drastically reduced -- it is just not available, but the reason is unclear for the low production.
A massive sea change is coming, but I don't have a clear picture of the aftermath, just snatches and glimpes of insights, but as Cory H. says " it will be more wierd and wonderful than we can imagine".
On question two : the new normal will be as related as to the current normal as a mule is to a donkey.
urth
-- urth (urth1@aol.com), September 11, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
We may never pass this way again -- Seals & Crofts
Ten years ago, or so, I read a profound book, The Changing Nature
of Man: Introduction to a Historical Psychology, by J.H. Van den
Berg. I can't seem to put my hands on it at the moment (amazon.com is
down), but as I remember, the basic premise of the book was that the
entire weltanschauung of a culture is always changing. People always
recognize that the world around them is changing but they do not
recognize that they themselves are changing, too. As a result, we are
not very much like our grandparents, and much less so like the people
who lived two hundred years ago.
I have also recently read Man and Society in Calamity, by P.A.
Sorokin, a sociologist who examines how people historically have
behaved in the face of war, famine, pestilence and disease. People are
remarkably consistent in how unpleasant they become under adversity.
What struck me most in this book, however, was the realization of how
very common these disasters are. We've enjoyed a remarkably long
streak of prosperity. The general rule has tended more toward 3-5
years of drastic population culling disaster every generation.
Things will never feel normal to us again, Y2K or no. The older we
get, the more things depart from how they were when we were young, and
the more things will feel out of synch. If Y2K is a show stopper, only
the very young will interpret it as a usual rate of change. As much
as people will be trying to return to the old ways, you can never
go home again. The unborn won't know any different and everything will
seem normal to them. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I believe we will get all our utilities back, but that there will be a
great loss of life and general mahem. The big question is whether or
not the culture will allow the internet to flourish. I certainly hope
so. This is the biggest mind expanding invention ever, except for
perhaps books.
I would be happy to see a world where people had more control over how
they choose to live their lives. I would like to see companies have to
pay more to access "the commons" of clean water, and pay more to keep
the air clean. This would, of course, reduce economies of scale, and
return services and manufacturing operations to local control.
I think humane population growth control could be encouraged by
marginally more for incremental service use. This could be achieved
with sales taxes. For example, the first four gallons of water per day
per adult could be tax free. That would be enough for their minimal
needs plus one child. The next four gallons could be taxed at 100% of
the price, and the next four gallons taxed at 200%, and so on. Those
who are reasonably conserving could purchase water rights at the low
rates, and sell them to others who wished to use water for commercial
agriculture or other businesses.
To be continued, tomorrow or later.
-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 11, 1999.
Urth: The 1800s + feudalism + other odd elements huh? No one will
ever accuse you of not having an imagination. Who knows, you may turn
out closer to the mark than anyone else. LOL.
Dancr: I really enjoyed your post. Thanks. New Normal may end up
being a moving target that changes more often than we would consider
likely given our present steadier-state (comparatively) normal of
today.
Isnt it interesting how people relate to change? Sometimes we dont
even recognize change. Most often in fact, until the beginning of
the new trend has already manifested itself. One reason is that
people refuse to see what they dont want to see, even if its right
in front of their face. Thats why Congress passes laws to prevent
the catastrophe which has already happened, for example.
You make some excellent points about what might constitute normal
based on age as a key variable. I have thought some of these
same things. I guess all of us parents have.
Personally, I threw out normal as I knew it well over a year ago,
as I struggled to make life-style changes to become more self-
reliant. There just isnt any going back. Your post also points to
the difference between our own personal normals and whatever
becomes the collective normal(s) for society. It is a valid
distinction.
The reason that it sometimes appears that, in apparent contradiction
to what we have been talking about, The more things change, the more
they stay the same, is because human nature is immutable, yet the
stage on which we act is forever in a state of flux.
I too would like to see us as a species make some different choices,
like using solar and wind power where feasible in lieu of fossil
fuels, for example. Will these types of changes actually happen? It
depends on how many people get seriously screwed. Flint may get
bashed a lot but he nailed that part. History teaches that true
reform is never possible unless a lot of people get hurt badly and/or
die. Sad, I know, yet this relates to the subject of this thread and
the assumption for a 9 or greater.
ALL: The crystal balls still as clear as mud. The only constant in
our lives remains change itself. Y2K of 9 or greater will usher in
change Big Time. Perhaps 99% of Y2K impact will end of being
peoples reactions. Given human nature and some educated guesses
regarding what the disruptions will entail, can we draw any
conclusions about the eventual emergence of a different new normal?
For example, a general distrust by many of computers themselves has
been speculated. What do you think?
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 11, 1999.
Rob you said:
"But suppose reality dictates that "comfortable" isnt in the
cards as part of the new normal? You may not be "open" to this, but do
you see this as a realistic possibility of a new and different normal?
"
Absolutely, I do see being less than comfortable a distinct
possibility; probably better than 50/50. (Comfortable meaning the
basics.) That is why I said I worry more and more about it.
Again, change is fine; change is as good as a rest they say. It's the
comfort concern that has me prepping until my eyes water.
-- Will (sibola@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.
Rob, where do you get these questions??
I've thought for some time now that if we have more than a severe
depression, Infomagic's scenario makes more sense to me than most. I
find it very difficult to even imagine living through that type of
disaster, and I doubt that the unravelling would stop at a 1800's or
1700's type of technology (perhaps because my skills fit only a
technological society). I feel that far too few people have generalist
skills and far too many have skills that work only in a highly
specialized and hi-tech society. If the electric goes down and stays
down, the society destruction could far exceed my ability (or desire)
to speculate. My prediction of a 5-7 could well derive from this
simple fact.
However, I truly believe that a universal 9+ is very unlikely. As
Chuck stated earlier, centers may emerge to become the nexi of
continuing knowledge. If the knowledge remains, eventually it will be
used. How long an eventually? It depends on how well the knowledge is
maintained. Will people die before society of any sort gets rebuilt?
At a level of 9+, I have no doubt of millions or even billions of
deaths and a descent of medical ability that will cause a continuing
life expectancy lowering. Lots of places in the world now still have
an average life expectancy that we in North America would find
appalling, but still better than it would be without
vaccinations/medicines which may be lost in a 9+.
Although I doubt that I could recognize the new normal, I have little
doubt that in a shorter time than I'd believe possible, my comfort
level would be re-established. Habits form in 3-6 weeks, I've been
told.
-- T the C (tricia_canuck@hotmail.com), September 12, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
This is a continuation of my long post on this thread from last night.
I touched on this briefly above when I mentioned that I hope we will
get to see a continuation of the internet. The main thing I have
learned this year is that there is something drastically wrong with
our system of detecting, reporting and disseminating important news.
This is not to say that I have been naive. I wasn't born yesterday.
I've long known, for example that the media do not do a very good job
in reporting on things that are important to me, such as unschooling and
health freedoms.
It's been a long time since I've read A People's History of the United
States: 1492-Present, by Howard Zinn a book which "turns
traditional textbook history on its head."
I've seen, in Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything
Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James W. Loewen,
how lies can become universal truths, without invoking a paranoid
conspiracy theory.
But even with this relatively high level of awareness, I have been
dumbfounded at the lack of serious coverage that the Y2K problem has
received, at how numb reporters are to a story that practically writes
itself and comes up and hits them on the head.
I thought we had a theoretically good "free press" system, which would
cause the truth to be come out. Obviously we do not. What is wrong? I
don't know. How can we improve the situation? I have to think that the
internet is a big part of the solution. But only if we keep
it free.
-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 12, 1999.
http://www.tidesofchange.org/newton.htm
Strange Attractors, Paradigm shifts and Y2k
On Christmas night in 1642 a new born child was struggling for his
life. In the sky above a comet
could be seen and those who contemplated the heavens wondered what
manner of catastrophe was
predicted. The child, who was not expected to survive, went on to live
past eighty and usher into the
western world a fundamental shift in how the universe was perceived.
The contributions he made laid
the groundwork for a scientific-technological revolution which would
change the face of the planet.
Some might argue that this revolution has had a catastrophic
environmental effect and so in a way the
comet's legacy has been fulfilled.
Isaac Newton's mother left him with his grandparents when he was
three. Isaac's father had died
three months before he was born and she apparently did not want to be
burdened by raising him. It is
widely agreed that this abandonment led to an extremely difficult life
for Isaac Newton. He was
secretive, suspicious of the outer world, and prone to wage long
vindictive battles against those
whom he perceived had wronged him. This propensity for paranoid
behavior locked him into a battle
with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz over who was the true originator of
calculus.
In one of the great ironies of history the machine which Isaac
Newton's arch rival Leibniz helped
bring into the world has opened the door an a paradigm shift which is
changing the face of Newtonian
determinism. Leibniz not only was crucial in founding binary
mathematics, the tool which has given us
the modern world of computer science, but also made the first working
calculating machine in the
western world. He was a true godfather of computing. The battle
between Newton and Leibniz filled
both men's lives with much unhappiness. The battle was fought in vain
because in retrospect it
appears that calculus appeared nearly simultaneously to both of the
men independently. It was simply
in the air. Calculus, which has been called the mathematics which
launched the industrial revolution,
was a part of a paradigm shift which was beyond either Newton or
Leibniz
To understand how the great-grandchildren of Leibniz's machine now
threaten to unseat the paradigm
which Newton set in motion you will need to understand why a
meteorologist in the 1960's changed
the way causality is perceived by a bit of inattention. Edward Lorenz
had created a computer
program to simulate weather change. His machine was large, unwieldy
and kept breaking down, but
it worked. He was able to create his own weather from a handful of
mathematical formulations.
Lorenz was on the cusp of taking the Newtonian dream of predictability
into one of the most
notoriously unpredictable realms: the weather.
One fateful day he decided to use a shortcut. He wanted to examine a
particular sequence in greater
detail. Instead of starting the computational run over he began the
machine in mid sequence. He
typed in the values from an earlier print out and then went down the
hall to get a cup of coffee while
the vacuum tubes and wires crunched their numbers. When he came back
he discovered that the
print out of the new weather was completely changed. It bore no
resemblance to the old print out.
He was mystified as to what could have made such a difference. After
considerable effort he
discovered the problem. He had inadvertently changed one of the
numbers in the equation. The old
number was .506127 and he had typed in .506 because in the print out,
to save space, the shorter
number was given. The computer had .506127 in its memory, but the new
weather run was launched
on the shortened value. A thousandth of a difference in value should
not have made such a difference
in outcome, but it did. The result was so different that he was forced
out of his familiar world and into
what would later become called the strange world of Chaos theory.
Because he had a strong
mathematical bent he was able to track the equations to their source
and in a few short years helped
launched a new science.
A computer created the possibility of tracking complex phenomenon and
it would be the massive
power of computers which would bring the science of chaos into its
current sophistication. Leibniz's
machine has helped unseat Isaac Newton's cherished views of the
universe. For in the world
described by Chaos theory change and turbulence are constantly dancing
around the edges of reality.
The hard and fast determinism which Newton struggled so hard to bring
to the world is now showing
signs of being only a limited way of viewing the world.
And in a compound twist of irony these same machines are now poised to
create havoc in the
modern industrial world. The same trick of shortening which brought
Lorenz to his discovery of
Chaos
Theory is literally creating havoc in the world's computing grid
through what is known as the
millennium bug. The shortened date fields won't roll over as the year
2000 comes. Without changing
each and every date field in every computer on the planet which is
programmed with the bug,
information, energy, food, fuel and money may not move as it has. As
the world comes back from its
symbolic cup of coffee on Jan 1, 2000 it will be coming back to a
vastly uncertain outcome. A world
perhaps on the edge of chaos.
Given that we have date with the chaos it would be good to understand
some of what this paradigm
shift may be telling us.
Here's a few possibilities from the language of Chaos Theory and a
modest translation.
As change accelerates the possible outcomes reach a point where normal
cause and effect
breakdown.
Translation: Old patterns of control and dominance will fail as usual
patterns simply stop working.
Certainty and control become unstable in a developing field of chaos.
Translation: If we rely only on certainty we will have a very hard
time when chaos looms.
Multiple realities, simultaneous points of view and different worlds
all may exist within the same time
and space.
Translation: There will be many solutions and many failures all of
which will be generated by the
same global transition.
After a certain stage of bifurcation event basins appear which are the
domains of the outcome.
Translation: When the predictable world begins to change there are
distinct areas of possible
outcomes. You will be guided into these domains by the quality of
your intention. If you collapse
into fear, you will land in a fearful event basin. If you increase
your creative capacity then you will join
a basin of possible futures.
Systems in a state of disequilibrium can become highly sensitive to
new information, experiment
profusely and adapt quickly.
Translation: Evolution and growth occur most at the edge of chaos.
A system on the edge of chaos is sensitively dependent on initial
conditions.
Translation: This means that actions we take now, even small ones, can
have huge effects down
stream. This also means that small, inconsequential actions, could
effect large global changes in ways
which are hard to visualize. (The classic image in Chaos theory is of
a butterfly shifting its wing. This
small change creates a minor turbulence which escalates across scale
boundaries in unpredictable
ways and is part of the transformation of weather which leads to a
hurricane)
In chaos diagrams no point or patterns of points ever recur in exactly
the same way and yet there is
an new kind of order which can be seen if the scale of observation is
large enough. (think snowflake,
or leaf)
Translation: What may appear as chaos in the upcoming period may in
fact be evidence of a larger
order, a grander sweep of history at work.
Isaac Newton, back in the 1600's, was determined to show that the
orbit of celestial objects obeyed
strict laws of motion and were not influenced by some mysterious
heavenly force. His need to
establish order in the heavens may well have been influenced by the
chaos in the world about him. At
a critical point in Newton's life the plague broke out in London and
he fled to the countryside to
escape the disorder and death. A year later the great London fire
broke out gutting much of the city
and making his return even more problematic. He had just finished a
significant portion of his
schooling and in the two years of enforced idleness he was able create
order where before their had
been unrest and disruption. He was able to present a coherent view of
how the universe worked
based on causality. His discoveries helped transform the science and
technology of his world and has
left a legacy of cause and effect which influenced politics, commerce,
philosophy and helped propel
the western world into a mechanistic model of universal functioning
which offered the tantalizing hope
that with enough effort an unruly world could be tamed.
Ironically that basic impulse to establish control led to the
experiments of our meteorologist. He was
wanting to create models of weather change which could help predict
the outcome of natural events.
If you are a meteorologist you have a pretty high incentive to get
your models right because if you
don't the public shakes its head and mutters about how the weather
people are always wrong. There
is large lesson to be learned in how Lorenz dealt with the change in
his cherished program. Instead of
throwing away the outcome as an annoying anomaly he realize that he
had in his hands a clue to how
small changes can exert large scale transformations, more importantly
he realized that he was being
given the key to understanding the patterns of Chaos.
In the face of large scale changes there is an understandable desire
on the part of humanity to exert
control. The other option, one exercised by the ancients numerous
times, is to blame some agency
beyond human understanding for the effects which are taking place.
Modern Chaos theory coupled
with Quantum mechanics opens the door to a third option. One which is
very helpful to understand
when contemplating the speed of global changes unfolding before our
eyes.
This option says that we are floating, stationary islands of streaming
energy, embedded in a sea of
much larger change. Think of the red spot on Jupiter. This planetary
phenomenon has been observed
for hundreds of years and yet what it is a large hurricane which has
managed to maintain its integrity
in the midst of the maelstrom of a planet nearly becoming a sun. We
effect and are effected, in a
non-linear manner, by the global environment. Within the obvious world
of cause and effect there is a
stream of possibility which verges on chaos. This creative edge
mediates between differing layers of
reality, from atomic vibration to the movement of the heavens. Within
these boundary layers of chaos
small changes can bring about large scale shifts.
Y2k is a classic example of this phenomenon. A simple act of deleting
two date fields from the early
computers has escalated, through an amplification of scale, into a
global crisis. Who would have
thought that the a seemingly minor computational decision in the early
days of programming would
blossom in to the most expensive and potentially dangerous problem
since world war II?
There is an adage in many healing disciplines which states that where
the symptom lies the cure is to
be found. I believe that this is compellingly true in regards to Y2k.
Y2k is a classic example of small
scale change leveraging itself into a position to change the destiny
of a planet. And so we should
gather our courage and migrate towards the edge of chaos where small
acts can change possible
futures.
What does this mean in practical terms?
It means that instead of denying, arguing, grandstanding, crusading
and fearing the phenomenon of
Y2k we should move fearlessly into the edge of chaos which is opening
before our eyes.
An analogy is helpful at this point. Imagine a stream of water coming
from a single source. As the
flow of water begins the stream is quite happy to fall in a straight
line towards the ground. As the flow
increases it begins to swing back and forth in a pendulum like motion
(Point attractor in Chaos terms)
as the flow begins to increase the pendulum action begins to swing
into a circle (Torus attractor) and
finally as more and more water begins to flow the simple motions
breakdown into chaos. The science
of Chaos actually has mathematically mapped out what are called
bifurcations which lead to more
and more elaborate dynamic systems.
One more image is helpful as well. In speaking of the cascade from
order to chaos the theoreticians
talk about strange attractors producing domain basins. A domain basin
can be thought of as the
probable area in which the flow of events gather. Think of a ball
bearing rolling around in large bowl.
Eventually the ball bearing will stabilize at the bottom of the bowl.
This is a stable domain basin
formed by a strange attractor. (The strange part comes because the
geometry involved is
non-Euclidean). In a complex system there can many possible attractors
all competing to become the
final domain basin and the boundary between them is visualized as a
saddle.
And before we leave this part of the discussion its worth noting that
a crisis is the change in an
attractor when its basin boundary is destroyed.
Our basin boundary is about to undergo a large scale shock. If the
computer grid of the planet is not
resilient enough then the attractor which has held our modern world
experience together is about to
change shape, big time. Viewed locally this can be perceived as
catastrophic, but if a longer view is
taken the resulting chaos actually has implicit within its movement
the hint of a larger order.
The flow of ,money, industrial goods, services, medicine, politics and
transportation can be thought of
a stream of water. The system is stable as long as the rate of flow
does not overwhelm the structure.
But what happens when the structure breaks down? Then all kinds of new
attractors appear as the
old ones collapse, new domain basins are created and destroyed.
Anybody who has had the occasion to live through a crisis may have
discovered a curious fact: in the
face of large scale change the best of humanity and the worst of
humanity appears. And what is
comforting is that on the whole altruism and a sense of selflessness
seems to be predominately the
response. In the recent floods in Texas people who had lost their own
homes and were staying in
shelters volunteered to be out helping others.
During World War I after the first few months of deadly trench warfare
a strange event took place.
On Christmas day, 1914, it dawned bright and cold, freezing the sea of
mud which had been
between the enemies. Spontaneously both side, allies and axis
soldiers, spilled out of the trenches and
gathered in the middle, exchanging gifts, playing soccer and
discovering the humanity before them.
The generals,reacting in horror of the implications of such a
spontaneous act of generosity, forbade
under the threat of death such fraternization and so the war
continued. But for one moment, in the
midst of all that anger, hate and violence, a new force emerged.
It is as if there is a strange attractor called love which is lurking
just behind the facade of our ordered
world.
A friend of mine told me a story about being a door gunner in Vietnam.
In the middle of the utter
carnage of the war he witnessed an incredible act of selflessness A
copter had gone down and a
white man was trapped in the wreckage. The copter was burning and no
one was willing to risk their
lives to rescue him. Suddenly from the ring of observers a black man
broke through the flames and
pulled the man from the flames. My friend described the moment as
feeling like an angel's wing had
just passed by.
A strange attractor took over.
Isaac Newton spent his life struggling to find order in the universe.
One wonders what might of
happened to history of science and the world if there had been a bit
more kindness and compassion
in his personal life. Would an open heart have helped move him beyond
mere determinism?
We are having an opportunity to find out the answer to that question.
The causal relationship between
many aspects of our world is under threat from the dynamics of change.
If we try to cling to the old
order then we will be whipped about like the last person in a chain of
people on the move. In this
scenerio the sum total of the energy of the moving snake of people is
communicated down the line
and sends the final person flying.
There is an emerging sense that on many fronts, from the economy, to
global weather, to pollution, to
political instability, to technological weakness that complex systems
are spinning out of control. We
can contract in fear and try to exert control over forces we do not
understand or we can hold to the
philosophers stone in the middle of this change: in the heart of chaos
is new possibility, unheralded
opportunity and the capacity to transcend our small and petty self
interest. There are domain basins
of magnificence lurking just beyond our sense of global unease.
New networks of cooperation, fertile new ideas and technologies, more
compassionate action, a
revolution in political power, new business paradigms, medical
miracles and a more livable planet
may be just on the edge of chaos.
And a minor little date change may be the butterfly wing which brings
it all about. Is there not some
elegance yet to be found in this universe?
-- (_@_._), September 12, 1999.
What an excellent essay! I've
printed it out, and it will be
required reading for my two
college-age kids.
It's quite impossible to rapidly
follow such a well thought out
and presented act, but my mind
is beginning to gnaw on the
bones, so perhaps I'll try to add
something later.
Thanks again, whoever you are.
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 12, 1999.
Rob,
I think that one of the
toughest problems
presented by your question,
is the question itself. What
is "normal" in our lives
today? In this context,
"normalcy" implies a way of
life, a lifestyle, if you will,
which exists, and is
expected to remain
essentially unchanged. Or,
stretched a bit, a rate or
direction of change that is
expected to be more or less
constant.
Just two generations ago,
my grandmother lived out
her entire life within fifty
miles of her birthplace. She
never traveled beyond the
boundaries of the U.S., and
died at the age of thirty-five
of tuberculosis. She was
certainly considered to have
lived a "normal" life in
"normal" times Yet, this
same life would be
considered quaint,
eccentric, "quiet", or even
tragic by today's general
consensus. My own mother
was brought home upon her
birth in a horse-drawn
wagon, witnessed the
landing of the first men on
the moon, has traveled the
world by jet, and has surfed
the internet.
I guess what I'm trying to
say, is we can never return
to normal, because
normalcy is the cloak we
gather about us. We carry
it along as we go, and
struggle within it for
protection from the winds of
chaos all around us.
Perhaps for some, "normal"
is now a warm dry dwelling,
abundant food, societal
support, and personal
liberty. But for others today,
that normalcy is as fantastic
as any science-fiction
daydream. (Perhaps, for
some of us, normalcy IS the
science fiction daydream.
The quest for further and
more rapid change.)
But in the spirit of your
question, I could foresee a
cataclysmic Y2K effect
resulting in a definite fork in
the road of history. In his
novel, "One", Richard Bach
explored the concept of
life's pathways, their
constant choices and
consequences. Chaos
theory applied to individual
lives. The cumulative
impact of daily decisions, or
of monumental changes,
upon the collective of
individuals which make up
society.
So, which pathway will we
take, individually, and as a
society, should Y2K present
such opportunity? Shall we
see the continued worship
of greed which has been
instilled in us, or shall we
respond with new-found
sense of humanity and
compassion? The great
Texas historian, T. R.
Fehrenbach, coined the
term "Homo Economicus"
to describe the motivation
and actions of the white
man during the westward
expansion of America. Will
exploitation, on whatever
scale, continue to be a
cornerstone of our concepts
of commerce? Or will the
beating of the butterfly's
wings upon our civilization
truly result in a more
compassionate,
cooperative, and fertile
society? Isn't change the
true normalcy? After all, we
each and every one are
born ignorant, which may
prove to be the saving grace
of the species.
The one certainty is that
some of us will find a return
to normalcy, and some of us
will not. But in either case,
and whatever the effect of
Y2K , it probably will not be
the normalcy of today. That
is to become our history.
In parting, I will leave you
with an excerpt from one of
my favorite poets:
We were ancient, even
when young.
Our wisdom was from
before time.
The soil then claimed our
souls, even
As now it claims our bones.
We lived by our sinews,
Our history written on the
skin
Of women; our glories,
On the faces of men.
----Excerpt, "Anasazi",
Canyon Walls.
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 12, 1999.
We will still be human beings with all their best and worst inherent
qualities. Thus, it's a given that we will ultimately rebuild in way
that reflects our needs and longings and hopes. It is my hope that
what we do and make is more reflective of our humanity, not shackling
us into the roles of glorfied machine cogs.
We will have the lessons of history and abundant records from which to
restore things as we see fit. We will still be infected with the meme
that open exachanges of information and knowledge serve to benefit
all. On the other hand, we will likely be very mistrustful of
plugging ourselves into huge, impersonal systems that control our
habits and frame our perceptions. I think we will favor the small,
mobile, and flexible over the White Elephants of the past.
To look for precedents for the 9-10 scenario, I suggest reading _The
Fourth Turning_ to get an idea of how people to respond to and grow
out of crises. Also, consider what happened in the aftermath of the
Bubonic Plague of the mid-1300s. Population declined for a long time,
but out of the mess came young princes willing to take risks and open
themselves to new ideas that their older siblings and parents once
turned away. The result was the Renaissance, which began in Venice
and the Netherlands in the 1400s. Out of the Renaissance came an
explosion of new technology, new styles of governing, new
philosophies.
I suspect that a crisis from time to time is good for progress. If
there were no crises, intellectual & technoligcal progress would
plateau and people would be bored and decadent, filled with the notion
that they have reached the high point of civilization and can go no
further. While bad things happen in a huge crisis, the chaos shakes
people out of their perceptions and their cozy routines, allowing them
to grow in new directions not allowed or thought possible before.
No nothing I've said here is all that original, so I'll shut up now.
But my prediction is that we'll ultimately positive changes BECAUSE of
y2k unfolding in 10, 20, 30 years. Ultimately we'll be inventing all
kinds of new things once suppressed by the the intellectual/corporate
elites. Petroleum, for example, will be replaced by solar or new
hydrogen energy. The distribution/production of energy will finally
be in the hands of the everyday citizen, not vast oil/power
conglomerates. This change in power will make things vastly more
efficient, propel economic growth at a massive rate, and allow space
travel and colonization to open up for all of us.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 12, 1999.
Coprolith,
I like your vision. Is is quite
interesting to think of the
Renaissance as being
spawned by the Plague. I
guess most cultures have had
beliefs in, and evidences of, a
Phoenix arising from the
ashes.
I too, think that history
provides clues to the future,
but in the case of Y2k, I
believe that historical
reliance may prove to be
misplaced. For instance, the
Black Death was a societal
crisis, but with most of
society's resources remaining
intact. There were still forests
for shelter and fuel. The land
and water still provided food.
The cattle and wild beasts
gave skin and wool for
clothing and textiles.
But today, much of our
society's resources are
informational in nature. It is,
after all, the information age;
information technology,
information systems,
information highways. This
resource of knowledge and
the free flow and flux of it,
basically provides for those of
us who do not build our own
dwellings, who don't grow our
own food, who own niether
fuel nor cattle.
How will we cope if this
resource is truly lost to us? As
I mentioned above, we are all
born ignorant. Surely, the
accumulation of knowledge
and technology could not
simply be reinstated in one or
two generations. Yet the loss
of this resource, or the
crippling of it's mechanisms
is precisely what Y2K is about.
Will we, like the Phoenix,
arise from technological
ashes? Will our nature allow
for the even distribution of
power, either political or
solar? Or will prosperity only
once again begat greed; will
community again begat
intolerance?
I am sorry if I am sqawking
like a storm crow. I too, wish
to see our own renaissance
begin, and hopefully we can
rise above the tyranny of
dogma, the corruption of
power, and the desolation of
our souls when nourished
only by selfishness.
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), September 12, 1999.
Wow! Thanks gang. Lots to go over here, but right now isn't the time.
I plan to respond tomorrow. Looking forward to reading these posts
and continuing the discussion then.
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 12, 1999.
Will: Thanks for the clarification.
Tricia: I just post what comes to mind... dont know where the
thoughts come from. I also find it difficult to even imagine, which
is one reason I decided to post the question in the first place.
Many times, I post a question in the hopes of trying, with
discussion, to clarify things in my mind.
Dancr: Glad to see that you continued your post. Have you heard of
the book called And Thats the Way it Isnt by Brent Bozell?
Based on your post, I think you may find it worth a look. It has been
my opinion that the mainstream media, which irrefutably has been
consolidated into the hands of less than two dozen individuals
(ownership), basically sings the same tune in the same key at the
same time. A good resource (though somewhat dated by now) to check
regarding this is the book Who will tell the People by
William Greider. It is hard to believe that so much media is owned by
so few. The ramifications of this should be obvious to all but the
most obtuse reader. Y2K isnt pleasant. It is not sound byte
friendly. Senators and other government officials have made it
plain, consistently, (even in last weeks national press conference),
that perception management is job #1. Koskinen himself stated this.
Avoiding panic is seen by TPTB as the first priority, not preparing a
nation for uncertainty. So in partial answer to your what is
wrong question, I would suggest that much of the mainstream press
is actually rewarded for not making waves and keeping to the script,
which continues to be Dont Panic whatever the costs.
And now, to our unknown poster, I write the following:
I dont know who you are, but I would like to tell you that your post
was one of the most thought provoking and wonderful responses I have
ever encountered on this or any other forum. Deep and Heartfelt
thanks. Please do not be a stranger. (In some ways, you remind me
of someone who used to post here that I and others had a great deal
of admiration and respect for. Anyway... )
Regarding Strange Attractors, Paradigm shifts and Y2k:
A fascinating story with which I was not familiar. Thanks again. I
also find it ironic (or is it poetic justice?) that The same trick
of shortening which brought Lorenz to his discovery of Chaos Theory
is literally creating havoc in the world's computing grid through
what is known as the millennium bug. Actually, I believe that our
world lives on the edge of chaos by default, covered by the thin and
psychologically accepted veneer of what passes for civilization and
order. As I have posted so often, we go from uncertainty to
uncertainty. Chaos is the reality underneath the fagade. That is
one reason why people are always surprised - no, even more than
surprised - AMAZED, at certain things that happen around them or to
them. They are only on the surface of very deep and turbulent waters.
Your examples from Chaos Theory are elucidating. We cannot rely on
certainty. To a large extent certainty doesnt exist in reality, and
if it did, it would be subject to change. Very few things are
immutable. I particularly liked that part about a What may appear as
chaos in the upcoming period may in fact be evidence of a larger
order, a grander sweep of history at work.
Maintaining control is the requisite fallacy that enables us
psychologically to accept the fagade as total conceptual reality and
dismiss the underlying reality of Chaos. This is part of human
nature. It is exacerbated and promulgated with cultural underpinnings
that are based on our perceived place in the world. In other words,
the world is perceived by our species as existing for mankind, rather
than mankind existing as part>/b> of this world. Maintaining
control, which is I think illusory, comes at the expense of living in
balance with the world as part of it and not its ultimate master.
Unchanged, this irrationally arrogant path has a price. It is called
near-extinction.
The third option where you describe the stream of possibility
verging on Chaos mediating between the different layers of reality
(perception based) is very interesting to consider. While your
proposed solution of migrating towards the edge of chaos to enable
the butterfly to flap its wings is idealistic, I find it compelling.
IMHO, if it happens it will not be by choice; rather it will be
forced upon people, as most true change is especially a paradigm
shift of the magnitude you articulated. Whatever new domain basins
come into existence will result from this, probably dynamically, and
not be planned in the ordinary context that we use the word. The
aggregate of these new domain basins may determine the overall shape
of the larger order but it may take quite a while for this to
coalesce. Change remains the only constant.
You are also right I think to bring up the permeating force of
indelible attractors such as love. This can be a factor that may play
a much larger role than one would expect, along with other real but
intangible imponderables. And as you surmise, we have an opportunity
to answer some questions. Just as important, I think we have an
opportunity to ask some important questions. We should
remember that the Chinese anagram for the word crisis is two
words: Danger and Opportunity
Lon and Corprolith: Ill be back after work to respond to your posts
as well. (I just ran out of time for now) So see you later, Rob.
All: More thoughts welcome!
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 13, 1999.
bold off I hope
-- (bold@off.off), September 13, 1999.
Lon: Certainly, normal is subjective and multifaceted. Both
individually and culturally. Most folks who have traveled outside of
their home country get a dose of this. And you are right in that
normal changes as a function of time. Everything does. What I was
specifically referring to in the original post are the collective
things that we have grown accustomed to in our way of life, day in
and day out, as a society. The fork in the road you mentioned was
where I was hoping to take the thread, and where it ended up. Perhaps
coprolith is correct, and one of the paths will lead to what will
someday be construed as a Renaissance.
coprolith : There have been some interesting previous discussions
that revolved around favoring small, mobile, and flexible over the
White Elephants of the past. Thanks for the suggested reading. I
will pick it up. One very popular book, written from an investment
point of view, is the landmark classic Extraordinary Delusions and
the Madness of Crowds. You may find it interesting.
I often-times really wonder what progress actually is.
Perhaps I will start a thread about it. It seems to me that this
word is both misused and also used way too often. When I see someone
weaving dangerously in the car in front of me because they are
talking on their cell phone (and it is not an emergency) it makes me
shake my head. Yet that same technology used by someone pulled off on
the side on the road calling for help does I think represent
progress.
Your point about crisis and necessity is a good one. In a somewhat
different context, I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said
something like A revolution every 30 or 40 years would be of great
benefit. Y2K has the potential to do the shaking you mentioned.
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 13, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
Here's some more about keeping the internet free at OT: Government Censoring the Internet
-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 14, 1999.
Dancr: Your link above is to this thread! I think you wanted
to point Here
Anyone up for more discussion?
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 14, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
Yep, you're right. Specifically, to here :)
-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 15, 1999.
Dancr,
I just had a quick chance to scan this intersting thread, and admit to
ahead full of cobwebs this morning - so bear with me.
Your vision of places under local control is a bit naive, or it
depends on your definitions of 'local' and 'control'. You live near
the only port on the left coast which is easily approached in any type
of weather. You also live near huge agricultural resources, supplying
a vast amount of vegetables, fruits, nuts, milk and other commodities
worldwide.
Because of valuable resources and tactical placement, your area has
not been under local control for over 200 years. It was nearly under
Asian control, it has been under European control, as well as Mexican,
and the US. { I can hear all you grammarticians howling in pain! }
I'm not trying to flame you, I just think your premise deserves a bit
more of a historical perspective.
-- flora (***@__._), September 15, 1999.
Hi Flora. Have you ever read the old thread called TBOTWAWBI
The concept of 'local control' was one part of that discussion...
which if you haven't seen you may find worth a look.
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 15, 1999.
Good Mornin' Rob,
Yeah, I enjoyed watching that thread develop. In my life the only
thing I really count on is that things will change, usually in ways an
oracle wouldn't have seen coming. Fortunately, I'm disposed to look
for silver linings and mixed blessings.
My daily life leaves me feeling a bit like the guy on the Ed Sullivan
show who has all those plates spinning on top of long thin poles. I
look forward to getting back to this thread when I can digest the
whole thing, in fact I really came back to see how many dog gone pages
I'd have to print out if I wanted to take it with me... gotta go , one
of those dang plates is getting pretty wobbly!
Thanks for starting another gem, Rob.
-- flora (***@__._), September 15, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
Fora said: Dancr..., Your vision of places under local control is a
bit naive, or it depends on your definitions of 'local' and
'control'.
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble figuring out what you're talking about.
Looking over my three posts on this thread and the other thread I
linked to this one, I'm trying to figure what "vision" you're talking
about. Did I discuss "local control" or even "local"? This is not
meant to be a confrontative question. I don't know, I'm asking. Maybe
this converstation is happening at a level that is over my head? Brain
fart or something... maybe you have me confused with someone else?
-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 15, 1999.
Dancr,
I'd quickly scanned your post of 9/11, where you said:
"I would be happy to see a world where people had more control over
how they choose to live their lives. I would like to see companies
have to pay more to access "the commons" of clean water, and pay more
to keep the air clean. This would, of course, reduce economies of
scale, and return services and manufacturing operations to local
control."
If the future 'locals' are going to be the future 'controllers' of
the resources, some of the folks will no longer be able to afford to
build the kind of houses they'd like to live in on the most productive
or desirable land.
-- flora (***@__._), September 15, 1999.
I'm glad to find this thread, Rob,...even more pleased with what I've
read so far of the thoughtful replies. I need to return to it and
finish, but wanted to post first gut reaction to the question of
"getting back to normal". So, from the gut....
A year and a half ago my sister's youngest child (Billy, age 12) was
struck by a car while crossing the road on his way to school in the
morning. He did not survive his injuries. My sister, her daughter,
and the rest of the family have had to look at the concept of "normal"
up close and personal as we never have had to before.
Now, I've never been fond of the whole idea of normal mind you (tongue
in my cheek),...cos I never "felt" normal as external referents
described it. Be that as it may, what I rediscovered as our family
did personal and family grief work was that "normal" cannot come back,
but a "new normal" can be found, created, identified, etc.
This is how I'm looking at what we humans individually and
collectively build should worst case scenarios manifest as predicted.
I think we will each have to create "new normals". It will be
difficult, as we will all have to grieve the loss of the good stuff
from the "Old normal"....but it is possible, just as possible as my
sister creating a normal life without her son.
So hope and sadness fills me, and 'nuff for now. I must go back and
read everyone's thoughts more thoroughly now.
Thanks for the great thread.
--She in the sheet upon the hilltop, feeling the breezes upon her
face.
-- Donna B. (moment@pacbell.net), September 16, 1999.
First a quotation:
It seems to me that the most powerful thing we can do to deal with
the social issues and opportunities we each care about is to join
together to increase our society's ability to fruitfully deal with ALL
the social issues and opportunities we face. If we do that, then our
favorite issues will likely be handled better. If we don't do that,
then the issues we care about will likely continue to be mishandled.
And we will all continue to drift towards unparalleled
catastrophes.
Tom Atlee, April 1999
This from the close of Tom's essay at co-intelligence.org:
Thoughts
from Tom Atlee
-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 17, 1999.
Donna: Thanks for the posts and the link to Tom Atlee's essay. "Co-
stupidity". Never heard that term, but yes, some interesting points
were made which fit right in here.
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 17, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ