>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 11:31:00 -0800 >From: Robert Theobald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Precedence: bulk >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: reflections on the evolving Y2K debate: beyond Y2K fatigue >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Y2K ATTITTUDES AND PATTERNS > > >I have had the opportunity to attend a large number of Y2K events in >Australia. >The overall reaction clearly is that this is the time to look at the broader >issues and desired futures. It is the time to push trends which are already >emerging in the culture. This pattern has led to the following musings which I >hope may be useful. > >I want to share some emerging thoughts with you about Y2K and the confusion I >think we are feeling. I don't think that there is anything very new here but I >do think that some of the language and its brevity may be helpful. > >The initial Y2K issue was how much we could fix the bug: the hope was that it >would be possible to limit the damage so that there would be at worst a >bump in >the road. > >As community people realised that it was almost inevitable that there would >indeed be a bump in the road, then it became obvious that there was a need for >preparedness. The model that developed proposed that people should stock food >and water for a given number of days. There are also suggestions for >preparing >for interruptions in energy and money supply, etc. > >This fell easily into parallels with disaster preparation. The work that is >going is obviously useful for people have indeed become far too casual about >what might go wrong and what they need to have available to them if there are >disasters e.g in ice-storms, high winds, electricity and gas failures etc. >This model assumes that there will be a short period of major disruption and >that realities will then go back to their previous shape. > >It seems to me, however, that the debate has moved on. The people who I >respect >are arguing that while there may be short-run dangers, the real issues are far >more complex. They believe that the overall industrial system is dangerously >stressed. They think that if things do go wrong, breakdowns will take place >over time and will damage the infrastructure on which we have come to rely in >unexpected and unpredictable ways. > >If this is the case, we need a second level of preparation which is quite >different in nature. The best way I have so far found to get at this is to >provide a parallel with attitudes to the human body. One could not live >well if >one spent one's whole time worrying about all of the diseases one can possibly >catch. One needs to have a general awareness of one's body and to be aware of >specific dangers which come from one's specific circumstances but the most >important goal is to build one's health and immune system. > >At the present time, it seems to me that we are greatly in danger of asking >people to try to understand all the possible breakdowns which could emerge >from >Y2K. This is leading to "Y2K fatigue" as people find that they are getting >whiplashed by contradictory experiences. I am convinced that we need to help >them to see that there is an overall set of responses which are relevant and >which we have aimed to evoke by the term resilience. > >People will only see the need for resilience if they tackle the Y2K crisis >at a >deep level where they understand that it is challenging the core of the >beliefs >that we have used to shape our realities in the twentieth century. They will >then move on to see that we are indeed being forced to develop a new set of >understandings and beliefs. > >Y2K is indeed a catalyst and an opportunity. But it cannot operate in this way >unless we enable people to approach it from a values and spiritual base. > >What does this mean in specific terms. It means that we must affirm the need >for preparedness as there will necessarily be times when families and >neighborhoods will need to support themselves. But preparedness is not >particularly a Y2K issue. Rather it is part of an overall failure to >grasp the >reality that the challenge in any culture is to deal with failures as they >occur rather than to believe that all failures can be avoided. It is part of >the needed shift to recognizing that mistakes are part of life and are >learning >potentials but only if they are admitted rather than denied. > >The real Y2K challenge is to see it as the forerunner of massive changes >in the >21st century. Our future goals must be quite different than those of the past. >We need to state clearly that human survival requires a profound shift from a >quantity of goods to a quality of life orientation. It demands that we commit >to social cohesion, ecological integrity and effective decision-making. It >demands that we live on the basis of positive values. It requires that we move >from mechanical to organic metaphors. > >(To gain further perspective please check out www.resilientcommunities.org. If >you are based in North America please consider getting involved in the April 8 >satelllite conversation. If you are based in Australia, we are exploring >whether a resilient community or capacity building approach is one which is >likely to coalesce the growing energy.) > > >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 www.resilientcommunities.org > ************************************************** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator * * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 533-6307 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937* * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * "The limits of our language means the limits * * of our world" Wittgenstein * * * * * **************************************************
