***FORWARDED MESSAGE*** WHY Y2K CANNOT BE IGNORED AND MUST BE TREATED IN NON-TRADITIONAL WAYS. Robert Theobald. Robert Theobald believes that a primary response to Y2k and other emerging crises is to develop resilient comunities. His latest book is Reworking Success. If you have received this as a forwarded message, he can be reached on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Please state that you are responding from a forwarded mesage.) The level of confusion around Y2K continues to be high. There are those who believe that the whole issue is hyped by consultants wanting to make money. The amount of effort, and money, being spent by institutions who have nothing to gain by wasting resources, which they would rather spend elsewhere, should lead everybody to reject this argument. The next level of argument is that so much effort is being devoted to Y2K that it will be a non-event at the technical level. It is indeed true that the rapidly growing level of commitment around this issue has certainly reduced the dangers. The problem is that nobody knows how much. This is not the place for a detailed examination of the many issues that make Y2K such an uncertain issue. But three points need to be made. First, while North America and a few other countries have made considerable progress, there are many parts of the world that are behind the curve and where the time-scale makes certain types of necessary remedial work extremely difficult, if not impossible. Impacts on North American are likely, but not certain, to be more severe through overseas failures than those at home. For example, maritime trade requires that a large number of complex systems mesh completely. If they do not do so, ships and planes cannot be loaded and unloaded. Serious thinkers believe that a 20% reduction in imports and exports is possible think of the impact of this on the Northwest. Second, there are an enormous number of systems that are sensitive to dates. Some of these are controlled by computer code, much of which is written in outdated computer languages and therefore difficult to correct. Some of them are controlled by embedded chips. There are many points at which failures can happen and even small component failures can have huge consequences. Nobody knows the extent of the problems and our degree of confusion is reinforced by our society's commitment to "spin" rather than clarity and honesty. We can get some sense of what might happen by looking back at the failure of a single satellite in the summer of 1998. It caused radio programs to go off the air, pagers to cease functioning, credit card systems at gas pumps to fail and many other problems to emerge. Third, and most critically, we live in a system which is interconnected in extraordinarily complex ways. Small failures can cascade and cause major breakdowns. Those who study complex systems are constantly amazed at the ways in which they defy analysis and have patterns which are counter-intuitive. In fact, one often sees results which are exactly the opposite of Adam Smith's beneficial hand: the self-interested actions of individuals and groups can all too easily combine to create co-stupidity rather than co-intelligence. Our socioeconomic system has assumed that it is appropriate to design systems which only work when everything goes right ìjust-in-timeî systems are a primary example of this approach. Our cultures are therefore increasingly brittle and vulnerable to shocks. The dangers have been shown as weather has been more extreme in recent years: some parts of Quebec were without power for six weeks. Y2K threatens multiple shocks and cascading failures. It is important to note, however, that they will not take place only at the turn of the millennium. They have already started and will continue into 2000 and possibly beyond. This will add stress to systems which are already often overloaded. To make matters even more complex, the degree of danger from Y2K depends to a great extent on the context in which it occurs. If the weather is extreme at the time of the New Year, systems will already be stressed and small additional pressures will be likely to have significant, possibly disastrous, consequences. (Remember the chaos in airports in early January 1999 and think about what would have happened with even small additional computer glitches.) To add to the dangers, there are some groups who are convinced that the world will or should come to an end with the coming of the new millennium and some of them are planning sabotage to increase the possibility that this will occur. (I was reminded how easy it was to cause disruptions just recently. A bomb threat was called into a ferry. Everything had to shut down) In summary, then, Y2K is uncertain, will have different impacts in many parts of the world, can impact many systems and can cascade in unpredictable ways. As an event which can potentially have major impacts at the social level it would be irresponsible to ignore its dangers at the community and social level. Indeed, one of the huge ironies of the current moment is that firms are spending huge amounts of money on the technical side and failing to recognize that the greater danger to their functioning is the potential societal impacts. The ultimate irony is this situation is that the greatest problems are likely to emerge from social shifts rather than from technical difficulties. It is clear that people are already seeing Y2K as an issue which requires them to take action. Unfortunately, actions which are individually intelligent may lead to social breakdowns. For example, if too many people stockpile too much food, or gas, or money this can bring on the very crises which those working with computer systems have been working so hard to avoid. What needs to be done and why we are so far failing to do it? The first and most obvious reason is that the deadline for Y2K is set and non-negotiable. This issue requires urgent and effective action by a date certain This means that the normal deadlines and schedules of most of our decision-making systems - and particularly those of foundations - makes timely and effective action impossible. A completely different model is required. This requirement is, however, only the tip of the iceberg. The fundamental styles of Western culture will have to change if we are to deal effectively with Y2K and the other global crises - like global warming, water shortages, environmental disasters, shortages of fossil fuels etc. We shall need to learn to share knowledge and to cooperate across boundaries. We shall have to hang together for if we do not we shall certainly hang seperately Y2K is already causing this recognition to emerge in spotty and incomplete ways. Concentration is shifting from the technical to the community and social levels. A number of people and groups are doing excellent work in this area but almost all of them are starved for resources and therefore far less effective then they would otherwise be. Preventing major breakdowns in 1999 is going to be a massive challenge. It will require a very different form of leadership which invites everybody to play a role rather than limiting it to a small, elite group. Blessings and Peace, Robert East 202 Rockwood Blvd, #1, Spokane, Wa 99202, USA 509-835-3569 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.transform.org/transform/tlc/rtpage.html 1999 will be a tumultuous year. How do we cooperate to create strange attractors which change dynamics in positive directions? For our process answer see http://www.resilientcommunities.org
