Systemic Reform

[Glenn Bacon <gcbacon@roadrunner.com>]

One of the key issues in this forum is that Y2K will cause beneficial
systemic reform.  I will argue that this is unlikely.

In earlier postings, I have argued that gain-max. is, at most, a
secondary cause of Y2K (I object to the use of M-Bug since the problem
is not a single bug but a whole host of programming practices.)  But
for the sake of discussion lets assume that a stake needs to be driven
through the heart of gain-max.  Systemic reform is still unlikely.

First, problems caused by Y2K will not persist long.  Businesses and
governmental entities frozen by Y2K will act very aggressively and
creatively.  Whether it is Sony, Exxon or Joe's Bagels, all employees
of a stalled business will be assigned to circumventing the problem.
They have nothing else to do.  Conveyors with failed embedded
controllers will be short circuited by hand-carried parts.  Stuck
switches will be manually overridden or wired around.    Pen and paper
ledgers and sales documents are better than no sales.  And, thanks to
the gain-max. behavior of almost all elements of the financial system
(banks, brokerage, credit cards, etc.), they  are nearing compliance
now and have a year to shake down.  Y2K alarmists fail to appreciate
the amount to human effort that will be unleashed by stalled
institutions.  Most institutions are spending 1999 building
contingency plans to circumvent non-compliant or untested systems.
They are not going to sit passively by and watch themselves or their
supply chain fail.

Even if the problem persists for months with reverberations for years,
it will not cause significant systemic reform.  The technological
infrastructure that existed before Y2K will exist (probably enhanced)
after Y2K because those who benefited from it earlier are going to
drive for its survival.  It is grossly naive to think that Y2K will
have a long-term impact on the evolution of technology.  The most
likely public outcome will be a host of  laws and regulations about
program liability, certification and contracts.  The public will want
assurance from the politicians that the problem won't happen again in
some other form.  The politicians will want to assure them. These
forces do not promote systemic reform.

Systemic reform will have to await a more permanent, non-reversible
disaster.  The most likely is the end of cheap oil (50-100 years?).
Global warming, if it has acute, personal impact might be another
trigger.  World-wide nuclear or biological terrorism is an outside
possibility.  But I believe it is impossible to promote the debatable
and abstract issue of gain-maximization to the level of disaster in
the minds of the general public.

I would personally wish for systemic changes that yielded stronger
community, sustainability and reduction of poverty.  But I believe Y2K
is being used irresponsibly by those with with an anti-corporate
agenda to promote their cause.  A recent Y2K Citizen's Action Guide
published by the Utne Reader offers a clue to this thinking.  Utne
states (pg. 14) ...."Y2K is the excuse we've been waiting for to stop
making so many compromises in how we know we should, and want to, live
our lives." ... The Y2K community organizing meetings I have attended
offer an improbable concatenation of "worst case" outcomes by people
who have an a priori commitment to "community organizing."  One has
the feeling that if they had a more sensational cause, Y2K would loose
focus.  The good news is that people will take some practical
precautions.  My concern is that, aided by a sensationalist and
ignorant press, all of this "worst casing" will cause a panic that
will do substantial individual and public harm.

Glenn Bacon