systemic transformation

[Roberto Verzola <rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org>]

Reply to Glenn Bacon:

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

There are at least 5 possible reactions to the M-bug (the bug is the
use of a 2- instead of 4-digit year):

* Problem denial              - common in the past, but increasingly
                                untenable today
* Frantic remediation         - not enough time; must be done in a
                                hurry; little time for testing; some
                                may deny the problem publicly, but
                                do remediation privately to avoid panic
* Individual survivalism      - accepts that major crisis is
                                inevitable; response of the
                                gain-maximizer; survival of the fittest
* Community self-sufficiency  - crisis response by the risk-minimizer;
                                risk-min. strategy pushes community
                                towards cooperation, self-sufficiency
                                and sharing of resources
* Systemic transformation     - conscious effort to discredit old
                                flawed paradigms and to develop &
                                advocate new paradigms, so that
                                post-2000 societies are freed of their
                                pre-2000 flaws

I agree with you that the last response is unlikely. However, IF the
pessimistic instead of the optimistic Y2K scenarios occur, the two
most common reactions will be indiv. survivalism and community
self-suff. If people don't panic but think rationally, I think they
will logically gravitate more towards the community self-suff. than
indiv. survivalism. Under community self-suff., the systemic
transformation response has a good chance. Corporations will obviously
want a "business-as-usual" scenario; they're frantically doing
remediation as best as they can, and they'll be working hard for
systemic transformation not to happen.

 >In earlier postings, I have argued that gain-max. is, at most, a
 >secondary cause of Y2K

I didn't realize you were ready to concede that... From Glenn Bacon,
that's good enough for me... |-)

 >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
 ...
 >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

I will concede all these things. On the other hand, there will be
communities who will try to be self-sufficient, and some of them will
go even further, and reorganize their behavioral rulesets in a big way
that will continue well beyond the crisis year(s). If there are enough
of these communities, who will be unwilling to go back to the old way
of doing things, then we will have given birth to new social
formations that can grow and replicate themselves. We will have
created a way out for civilization. It is up to us -- and the rest of
humanity -- to take this escape route from the looming ecological
disasters of created by the gain-maximizing paradigm. If we don't, we
will have nothing to blame but ourselves.

 >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

If we wait for the ecological crises, it will be too late, I'm afraid.
The human suffering these crises will cause are too horrible to
imagine. In a way, the Y2K crisis is heaven-sent. It is a warning shot
that is scary enough, but not that bad, really. I do hope -- if many
people think like you do -- that they (and you) will change their
minds and not wait for these terrible crises before making a major
shift in behavior, that we all heed this warning shot which is
probably the last window of opportunity for a relatively painless
systemic transformation.

 >I would personally wish for systemic changes that yielded stronger
 >community, sustainability and reduction of poverty.

We're on the same bus, then...

 >But I believe Y2K is being used irresponsibly by those with with an
 >anti-corporate agenda to promote their cause.

If you seriously worked at what you just wrote a paragraph back
(stronger community, etc.) you'll end up with an anti-corporate
agenda, I think. (Back to the gain-max. debate?)

 >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

Everybody's bound to make some mistakes here and there. That's where
well-thought out, finely-tuned rulesets come in. We all have to
contribute in crafting those rules which we can suggest to be part of
the future ruleset for the communities which will be sprouting all
over the place as the Millennium transition nears. That's why I think
this list is important, and why I wished more people participated
actively... Obviously, though, the real rulesets will be eventually
hammered out by the communities themselves. (It would be nice if there
was a way to do simulations of rulesets over hundreds/thousands of
generations or more...).

Roberto Verzola