RE: flawed paradigm that led to the Y2K problem

["Halim Dunsky" <halim@y2kcommunity.org>]

I'd like to hear more about "the funky, cheap, simple type of
self-sustainability" that Tom is proposing. What exactly would this consist
of?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-interdoc-y2k@jca.ax.apc.org
> [mailto:owner-interdoc-y2k@jca.ax.apc.org]On Behalf Of
> Bagelhole1@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 3:58 PM
> To: interdoc-y2k@jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject: [interdoc-y2k 12] Re: flawed paradigm that led to the Y2K
> problem
>
>
>
> 	Do you think this plan is worthy to mobilize around?
>
>
>
> Gentle people, I hope you find these ideas worthy of supporting:
> First of all,
> I would like to assume that you are up on y2k. But, if you are like many
> progressives, you may be asleep at the wheel on this one, I hope
> not. In any
> case, please be so kind as to indulge me for a moment, for I have
> found much
> on the web which supports the premise that can be found on the state of
> California y2k web site, that there is the possibility for infrastructure
> breakdown (i.e. no electricity, etc. for an indefinite period) and hence
> contingency should be implemented with this in mind.
>
> With this possibility in mind I would like to assert that the
> best, the most
> comfortable contingency that I can imagine would be
> self-sustainable, self-
> reliant, neighborhoods globally and locally before 2000. This is
> the funky,
> cheap, simple type of self-sustainability, not the deep ecology
> or the bio-
> regionalism, or anything that would take years to implement. This is a
> comprehensive self sustainability that would be more fitting for
> contingency
> for infrastructure rupture such as y2k presents.
...