Simple. It is the most meaningful, productive, realistic and fun
option available to 99% of us.* One of the best things about it
is that you find some really interesting people working for a
breakthrough in this historic moment.
We have to remember that we aren't talking about choosing between
positive breakthroughs,
on the one hand, and business-as-usual on the other. We're talking
about significant disruptions no matter what. (If you haven't
already read the background material
given in this website and elsewhere, read it soon.) The likelihood
of things staying pretty much as they are is extremely small.
Something is going to change, and it could change in some very
big ways, quite rapidly.
So what might replace business-as-usual? The following alternatives
are considered quite plausible by professional scenario-builders
like Douglass Carmichael
who make their living exploring the future with top government,
military and corporate leaders:
Individualist survivalist approaches* to Y2K make the first two
scenarios more likely: Since only a minority can or will attempt
survivalist approaches (latecomers will pay dearly for every can
of food and every inch of country real estate), and since those
approaches drain energy from efforts to prepare strong communities,
all those individual behaviors will add up to widespread disruption
that will evoke authoritarian responses. And then, ironically,
the powers-that-be in those first two scenarios -- or desperate
city dwellers -- or other survivalists who've run out of supplies
-- will probably invade any survivalist enclaves, making the whole
survivalist effort an ugly, ultimately self-defeating exercise
in futility. (See Why
Community-Based Responses Make More Sense than Survivalism
) (Although I have to admit a few die hards may just make it,
and they'll be left to carry on the race. Somebody has to do it,
I guess. But it seems to me about as sure a bet as the California
lottery -- and quite a bit messier.)
The only sensible choice, really, for the vast majority of us,
is building strong, sustainable, democratic, ecologically wise,
locally-oriented communities. Soon. Any efforts we make in this
direction will pay dividends whether the disturbances of Y2K are
short-lived or catastrophic.
For me personally -- and for anyone else interested in co-intelligence
-- there's an additional benefit for taking a breakthrough approach
to Y2K: Y2K is a great laboratory to explore how human collective
systems (organizations, communities, governments, societies) go
about trying to deal with a major problem that is complex and
time-sensitive. What we learn here, and the capacities we build
-- assuming we do learn something and do build some capacities
-- will make a tremendous difference in how we handle future social
problems. As founder of the Co-Intelligence Institute, it is hard
for me to imagine a more fascinating problem (although I have
to admit it is awfully big and there isn't much time!)...
-- Tom Atlee
___________
* A very few exceedingly rich billionaires like Bill Gates may
be able to buy, supply and successfully fortify lush tropical
islands for their private colonization. That's the only survivalist
approach that I can imagine working if significant breakdowns
continue for more than six months. Everyone else who is holed
up will be hunted down by other people hungry for resources (food,
water, ammunition) or power. There's an awful lot of us humans
and, if our socioeconomic infrastructure breaks down, we'll be
everywhere. For better and worse, there is no
place to hide anymore.
See also Ready for Chaos or Community? by Sharif Abdullah. Three very plausible scanarios of what could transpire on Jan. 1, 2000. The third is very inspiring.