Yet another y2k realist has decided to say farewell to y2k. This is quite understandable as at times I've been tempted to do the same. It is ten times harder to write about the dark side of y2k when one must compete with government and PR assurances who constantly drown you out. Getting the public to believe a "bump-in-a-road" outcome takes much less evidence, effort and scrutiny. To believe what Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Ed Yardeni and this site's views are on y2k requires a challenge of faith of what we all want (hope) to believe: that through the power of positive thinking and good ol' American ingenuity we can solve this thing. To say otherwise is down-right un-patriotic and scare-mongoring---even when backed by a wealth of evidence, logic and flawless methodology.
This is because people DON'T WANT to hear the dark side. Denial and delusion are much easier to emotionally accept, hence the dramatic drop-off in interest in y2k in recent months.
There are many vulture/denialists who are constantly looking for any minor flaw in the "doomers'" arguments so they can say "AH HA! He was wrong!--Na-na-na-na--naa!. This is part of the 25 disinformation tactics routinely used against those seeking the truth.
My goal on this site is to confirm what I've always instictually sensed what will happen in the years ahead. That is, to make the best possible case that there will be a depression and era of global war ahead. While sites like this are routinely scorned at the present, a time of vindication will eventually arrive when predicted events come true and even the skeptics/critics will have to grudgingly admit: "The Doom & Gloomers were right all along."
Assuming they are alive
Sayonara, Y2K
The time has come for me to say goodbye to Y2K. I'm removing the Y2K articles, links, and resources from my web site, and dropping off the Y2K radar screen. Y2K has been part of my life since early 1995 and has occupied nearly every waking moment since the summer of 1997 -- and while it will continue to have a significant impact on my personal and family life, I no longer plan to play a public role. I realize that this may raise some questions, and perhaps cause some commentary and debate, and I've attempted to answer the more obvious questions below.
Why? Why Now?
No, I haven't been abducted by aliens. I haven't been kidnapped by the CIA or the mysterious people in black helicopters. I haven't been threatened by the FBI. I haven't been bribed by banks or the government (or anyone else). There is nothing deep, dark, or mysterious about my decision.
I simply feel that I've done everything I can do to raise the alarm about Y2K. I've co-authored two books, written dozens of articles and essays, spoken at hundreds of seminars, conferences, meetings, and gatherings. I could continue doing the same thing, over and over again, but I would be repeating myself. More important, I would be preaching to the choir; those whose opinion and outlook on Y2K are compatible with mine would nod their head in agreement, and those whose opinion and outlook are incompatible with mine would shake their head in disbelief, just as they have for the past four years.
Yes, there are still some people who are undecided, and who continue to listen to both the optimists and the pessimists before making up their own mind. But I think that a more accurate term for "undecided" is "indifferent" -- i.e., there are many people who still don't care, who don't think the topic is worthy of serious attention, and who may not focus on Y2K until this fall -- and quite possibly not even until midnight on New Year's Eve. Meanwhile, I sense a hardening of positions: those who are pessmistic about the outcome are even more convinced than they were a year ago, and those who are optimistic are even more convinced, especially because they see a steady stream of upbeat press releases and government status reports.
More than just hardening of positions, though, I sense an increasing degree of confrontation and hostility between the two camps. It's reflected in flame wars on the Internet discussion groups; emotional rhetoric in the statements of government officials and media articles (e.g., warnings against "frivolous stockpiling"); McCarthy-esque threats by both sides that "we're taking names" in preparation for some kind of undescribed post-Y2K retribution against those who express an opposing point of view; and, overall, a sharp decline in civility. I expect this to continue for the remainder of the year, and I don't think it's a productive use of my time (or anyone else's) to continue attempting to respond to messages and commentary whose purpose often seems to be "ignore the message, shoot the messenger." Why isn't it productive? Because it doesn't change anyone's mind about the topic. Perhaps we could use the services of some of the gifted statesmen who have helped negotiate peace treaties in northern Ireland, or the middle East; as for me, I don't have the skill, the patience, or the training in this kind of diplomacy.
Does This Imply A Change of Opinion About Y2K?
No doubt there will be some who gleefully proclaim, "This just proves that Ed was wrong about Y2K all along! He has given up on his 'doomer' position, but he's too much of a coward to say so!" Well, time will tell whether any of us were right or wrong about Y2K -- but for now, my perspective on Y2K remains essentially unchanged. I stand by the comments I've made in all of the articles and essays that I've written; at a "macro" level, I still have a pessimistic outlook about the outcome of Y2K. We can argue indefinitely about whether the large government agencies and the large companies in England, Canada, Australia, and the U.S. will manage to muddle through, and whether the failure or bankruptcy of a few such organizations and/or agencies will have a dramatic impact. But even amongst the optimists, there seems to be a common consensus that small businesses, small towns/counties, and small (aka Third World) countries are so far behind that they're unlikely to finish repairing a signficant percentage of their mission-critical systems. The "fortress America" attitude amongst the optimists seems to be, "Well, so what if half of the small businesses don't do anything about Y2K until they see what breaks? So what if Eastern Europe, Africa, South America, the Middle East, and most of Asia don't manage to repair their systems? Why should I believe that this will have any impact on my life?"
Similarly, we can argue indefinitely about whether the governmental authorities and the private-sector organizations (e.g., the banks, the utilities, the telephone companies, etc.) are doing a good job or a bad job in terms of reporting their status and progress to the public. But there is a widespread theme that they're in control of the situation, and that (notwithstanding the possibility of a few "glitches") there's really nothing serious to worry about. Yet the federal government has acknowledged that it doesn't have the resources to provide emergency relief to all of the local towns and communities across the country; local communities are being told that they're on their own, and that they should make their own contingency plans. But the federal government can't force them to do so, nor can it force small businesses to make Y2K a top priority, nor can it issue ultimatums to foreign governments to do anything about Y2K. I don't even think it has control over the outcome of Y2K repairs within its own agencies, for non-compliant code doesn't listen to the rhetoric of politicians -- it either works, or it doesn't work. Ultimately, there is only a limited amount of control that corporations and government agencies have over the technological outcome of Y2K; yet the prevailing attitude seems to be that government and industry are in control, as long as they can "manage" the perceptions of the public. I have believed, all along, that Y2K is too big, too complex, and too systemic in nature to be "controlled" from a technological perspective; and I believe that the public's perception of Y2K will ultimately be shaped by tangible events that impact their lives, much more than it's shaped by the "spin control" efforts of government and industry. For the past few months, the PR spin control has been quite effective, and I fully expect that it will continue throughout the summer as government and industry seek to "reassure" the public. And since the public would generally prefer to be reassured that the government is taking care of any problems looming on the horizon, rather than face the possibility of serious disruptions, the spin control efforts may continue succeeding even into the fall of 1999.
Those who want me to continue participating in the public debate sometimes ask me, "But isn't it possible that things will change in the final months of Y2K?" And the optimists ask a roughly similar question: "Yes, I agree that things look bad in small companies, small towns, and small countries -- and maybe even in some of the big companies and big agencies. But don't you agree that with a lot of hard work, we can redouble our efforts, achieve a quantum leap in productivity, and make enough progress in these last few months to avert disaster?" To which my answer is, quite simply, "No." If you believe in the Tooth Fairy, or in the kind of implausible miracles favored by Hollywood script-writers, then perhaps you can sustain your belief that everything will somehow work out in the end. If you're looking at an individual company, or an individual government agency, perhaps you can make a plausible case -- yes, sometimes we get lucky, sometimes the combination of inspiration and perspiration are sufficient to overcome enormous odds. But at the macro level, I don't think it makes sense. We have 30 years of data in the software field that tells what to expect in the "average" case -- i.e., 25% of all projects are cancelled, 15% are delivered behind schedule, and the resulting systems have an average of one defect for every thousand lines of code.
If a miracle were to occur, it would have occurred two, or three, or four years ago. If President Clinton had addressed a joint session of Congress in 1996 and declared a state of emergency until Y2K had been completely conquered, perhaps we could look forward to a successful outcome at the end of this year. I'm not talking about the martial-law, conspiracy-theory form of "state of emergency," but rather a "fireside chat," followed by a series of actions that would make Y2K the highest-priority activity in the land. It didn't happen then, and it isn't happening now. I'm fairly convinced that it won't happen during the remaining seven months of 1999 -- and even if it did, it's now too late. If a high-level executive issues a thundering edict to the Y2K programming staff, "Redouble your efforts! Work harder!", the response from the programmers is likely to be, "Boss, we're thinking as hard as we can!" Software is an intellectual activity, rather than something requiring brawn and muscle-power; you simply can't order people to think harder.
I believe that we are entering the "end game" of Y2K, and that the outcome isn't likely to be changed significantly because of last-minute strategies, edicts, proclamations, or demands for deathmarch-style overtime on the part of programmers. About the only thing that's still an option, both for organizations and for individuals, is contingency planning and preparations for some degree of disruptions. But again, this involves preaching to the choir: those who believe it makes sense to develop and implement contingency plans, are already doing so -- indeed, some 90% of private-sector organizations are planning "war rooms" or "control centers" to cope with whatever problems arise. Meanwhile, those who think it's unnecessary will continue to do nothing. Yes, it's possible that there will be a last-minute surge in preparedness activities, especially at the personal level; but it probably won't happen until this fall, at which point it will lead to the very phenomenon of shortages and panics that government spokesmen have been warning about. Meanwhile, it's going to be a long, hot, quiet summer of Y2K-denial, unless some significant, undeniable, tangible event occurs.
What About All The People Who Don't Know About Y2K?
When I decided to move from New York City to New Mexico last year, some of the Y2K activists criticized me severely for "abandoning" New York. "You've doomed eight million innocent citizens to their fate!" I was told. "It's your responsibility to stay in New York, and warn all those people -- so they'll be ready for Y2K!" What a mind-boggling concept! If 8 million oblivious residents of New York City are entirely dependent on me, or any other individual, to learn what Y2K is all about, then we're all in a lot more trouble than we ever imagined.
There is no shortage of information about Y2K. If the 8 million New Yorkers, or the 250 million Americans, or the 5 billion citizens of the world, want to know all about Y2K, there are dozens of books, thousands of articles, and tens of thousands of references on the Internet. Ignorance was a plausible excuse in 1995 and 1996, perhaps even in 1997 -- but not now. If someone doesn't know about Y2K, it's because they've chosen to ignore it, and/or because they believe the assurances of government and industry spokesmen who tell them there is nothing to worry about.
In terms of personal responsibility, I am my brother's keeper. Actually, I don't have a brother, but I do have five sisters for whom I feel a sense of responsibility, along with my children, my wife, and my parents. I also feel some degree of responsibility for my neighbors and my community -- partly because I have a personal relationship with many of them, and also because it will do little good for for my family to be personally prepared if my neighbors are not. Beyond that -- i.e., at the state, national, or global level -- I've been happy to spend a considerable amount of my time and effort helping those who are helping themselves. And because I've enjoyed a good living in the computer field that was at least partially responsible for having created and perpetuated the Y2K problem, I've felt a professional responsibility to ensure that people understand what the problem is all about, and why it has been so difficult to solve. But there comes a time when it seems appropriate to say, "Okay, I've done my best to tell you what's going on. Now it's up to you to decide what (if anything) you're going to do about it." For me, that time has come.
Conclusion
I suspect that there are also a number of Y2K activists who will be frustrated that they can no longer send me email messages, asking meto provide an interpretation or analysis of the day-to-day Y2K announcements from the media and the corporate PR departments. To which I offer two responses: (1) you're intelligent adults, and you can use your own common sense to decide how to interpret the news; and (2) the debate between the optimists and pessimists will continue, with ever more emotion and rhetoric, right up to Jan 1, 2000 and beyond. If you're waiting for someone to produce an absolute, guaranteed, indisputable "answer" to the Y2K debate, you've already waited too long. It's not going to happen. As I suggested in one of my earlier essays, everyone will have to decide for themselves when the "moment of truth" has arrived, when they will make a decision about their own personal Y2K plans, in the presence of incomplete, fuzzy information.
I also suspect that there are a number of Y2K activists who will continue doing everything in their power to raise the alarm, alert the government, and encourage their neighbors and fellow citizens to stockpile and prepare -- right up to the last moment. They have my respect, my admiration, and my best wishes. As for me, it's time to get back to providing for my family.
If there are any major developments this summer or fall, where I think my background and experience in software engineering might provide a useful perspective, I'll dust off my soap-box and offer an appropriate commentary. And when the dust settles, in the days and weeks after Jan 1, 2000, I'll reappear to offer an appropriate mea culpa if my Y2K outlook proved wrong.
Meanwhile, my best wishes for everyone as we move into the Y2K end game. It's time for me to say, "Sayonara, Y2K." I'll see you on the other side.
|
|
Home Page: Future, Doomsday, Year2000
