---

"It is my personal belief, although I would be hard pressed to prove it, that we are at that very point in time when a four hundred year old age is dying and another struggling to be born; a shifting of culture, science, society and institutions enormously greater than the world has ever experienced. Ahead, the possibility of regeneration of individuality, liberty, community and ethics such as the world has never known, and a harmony with nature, with one another and with the divine intelligence such as the world has never dreamed."
-- Dee Hock, former Chief Executive, Visa International (1)

---

Over the past six months I've been coming to terms with the possible social consequences of the Year 2000 computer problem. I've researched the issue in some depth, contemplated the very worst case scenarios, and ridden the psychological rollercoaster that Y2K sets in motion.

It's impossible to predict how serious the actual outcome will be. What seems certain is that we have a problem of global proportions that *might* have serious consequences for us all. Because of this, local communities would be well advised to "prepare for the worst and hope for the best".

This article is a personal meditation on the links between Y2K and some of the social, political and economic issues that face us as we approach the new millennium. It is an attempt to weave together some of the threads of my on-going enquiry into the 'world problematique'.

Because Y2K is not an isolated phenomena but part of a much bigger picture, I feel that it is necessary to try to understand the problem in this context. However, the Y2K crisis transcends our personal worldviews. Whatever I might think about corporate globalization or spirituality, the present need for co-operation between people of all political and religious persuasions, and from all walks of life, is of paramount importance.

Paul Swann

A Brief Introduction to Y2K

Most people have now heard of the "Y2K millennium bug". Unfortunately, many still harbour the illusion that it's purely a computer programming or business management problem that really doesn't have much to do with them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that Y2K has the potential for developing into a major social problem affecting each and every one of us.

The Y2K problem (Y = Year, 2K = 2000) stems from human error. Back in the early days of computers, memory space was like gold dust. In order to save space, programmers reduced the four digits that we use to denote the year (eg 1999) to two digits (99). At that time, 25 or 30 years ago, the millennium seemed a long way off, and the assumption was that computer systems and programmes would have been replaced or upgraded long before the turn of the century. Most of them have been, but there are still many old "legacy" systems in operation throughout the world, particularly in mainframe computers, that may be vulnerable to the Y2K problem

At midnight on New Years Eve 1999, all computer systems will rollover from 99 to 00. Some will not know whether it's the year 2000 or 1900 and this is likely to cause havoc with systems that are not "Y2K compliant". Problems will range from computers freezing or crashing to the production of wildly erroneous data. Some systems will try to self-correct and produce corrupted data that seems reasonable but is still incorrect.

In addition to the computer software rollover problem, the date change will also affect "embedded systems". These computerised microchips are used as control and monitoring mechanisms in a wide variety of systems, machinery and other equipment. Some of them -- upwards of 20 million worldwide -- are also date sensitive and therefore vulnerable to rollover failures. Only a small fraction of these are used in "safety-critical" operations, but it is not easy to determine which embedded systems are date sensitive. As a result, malfunctions can be expected to occur in anything from nuclear power plants to weapons systems, toxic waste storage and processing facilities, water purification and wastewater disposal systems, oil refineries, supertankers...the list is endless. (2)

The potential for problems in the nuclear industry is of particular concern. According to a recent article in The Guardian, "Nuclear waste stored at 22 sites in the UK containing plutonium, the world's most dangerous substance, is in danger of leaking. In one case, at Sellafield in Cumbria, there is a risk of an uncontrolled nuclear reaction." The article fails to mention Y2K, but clearly the existing problems will not be helped by possible computer failures as a result of the millennium bug. (3)

Another recent report published by the British American Security Information Council highlights the danger of problems arising in nuclear weapons systems. Entitled "The Bug in the Bomb: The Impact of the Year 2000 Problem on Nuclear Weapons", the report recommends a policy of 'de-alerting', or standing down the global nuclear arsenal to avoid the possibility of Y2K-related accidents. (4)

A massive effort is underway throughout most of the industrialised world to resolve the date change problem before the immovable deadline. Unfortunately, Y2K has coincided with the introduction of the Euro -- the second biggest-ever programming task behind only Y2K. With huge resources having been dedicated to reconfiguring banking and accounting systems for the new currency, most European countries have fallen behind schedule on the laborious task of checking, rectifying and testing the billions of lines of Y2K affected computer code in the time available. Because of the economic meltdown in Japan, Indonesia, Russia and elsewhere, many countries are still further behind.

A similar problem with the programming of the satellites comprising the Global Positioning System may also cause some degree of disruption. Ten million boats and planes are dependent on the GPS for navigation, while the major banks use its super accurate atomic clocks to calculate the interest on multi-billion dollar loans to the millisecond. On August 21st 1999 the GPS will reach its 1024th week of operation and rollover to 0, again with unknown consequences. (5)

Another critical date is 9/9/99, which some computer systems may read as a signal to erase data. Problems are also likely to occur with the start of the new fiscal year and many experts anticipate that system failures and disruptions will gradually escalate throughout 1999.

Since it is a fact of computer programming life that the process of fixing software bugs often generates new faults, the chances of everything running smoothly in the early days and weeks of the year 2000 are zero. In effect, Y2K is a problem that can't be solved. The only question that remains is how much disruption it will cause and opinions vary widely from minimal inconvenience lasting a few days to 'TEOTWAWKI' -- the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it. Leading expert Peter de Jager, considered by many to be an optimist, says in a recent article:

"I believe that severe disruptions will occur and that they will last perhaps about a month. Additional problems, ranging from annoyances to more serious issues, will continue cropping up throughout 2000. This prediction might be optimistic; it assumes that people will have done what is necessary to minimize the number of single points of failure that could occur. Accomplishing that alone in the time remaining will require a Herculean effort unprecedented in the history of computers." (6)

Other experts with equally impressive credentials are much more pessimistic.

The Broader Context

Y2K is symptomatic of the fault lines inherent in the increasingly hi-tech globalized economy that we've created since the second world war, a process that has accelerated in the 1990s with devestating consequences for vast numbers of people and the environment. In the developed world we've come to depend on computer technology to such an extent that the fabric of our social infrastructure is completely dependent on it. This has brought many advantages and few of us would want to be without the creature comforts that we now take for granted. But the enjoyment of life's luxuries by the privileged few comes at an unacceptably high price -- the impoverishment, starvation and displacement of millions, wars, debt slavery, gross human rights violations and environmental devestation.

Journalist John Vidal established the linkage between economic globalization, environmental destruction and human misery in an article in The Guardian (7). As severe floods simultaneously wreaked havoc in countries as wide apart as China, Mexico and Belgium, Vidal wrote:

"Disaster experts, development agencies, academics and leading climatologists are beginning to support an emerging theory that the globalization of economies may be largely responsible for much of the human misery now stalking the planet.

"Austerity measures, IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes and the opening of markets may be good for economies, but they are heightening inequalities, encouraging countries to sell off resources and contributing to the reduction of protection by governments.

"Many countries that are vulnerable to floods, droughts, cyclones and other weather extremes are having to slash preventive health programmes. When disaster or epidemics come they are made more serious."

The flood of mega-mergers between big businesses and financial institutions has created a situation in which more than half the world's largest economies are transnational corporations. At the same time, deregulation of the financial markets has created an electronic "global casino" in which multi-billion dollar speculations take place in fractions of a second, threatening the stability of national economies. As a result, businesses collapse, jobs are lost, children die of poverty, education, health and social services are cut, democracy is weakened, biodiversity is diminished, rainforests are destroyed and climate patterns are disrupted.

The secretive attempt to introduce a Multilateral Agreement on Investment gives a further insight into the agenda behind the globalization project. While an MAI would increase the rights of individuals and companies when they invest overseas without adding to their responsibilities, at the same time it would limit the power of governments and local authorities to exercise positive discrimination in support of local economies. International investors would also be able to sue governments -- and hence the tax payer -- for breaches of the legislation with no right of counter-claim.

Such a big shift of power away from the poor towards the already wealthy would have serious consequences for democracy and the environment. For the vast majority of people living in countries where the economy is already burdened by impossible debt repayments, globalization and free market capitalism are simply not working.

Alternatives to Globalization

In his book "When Corporations Rule the World" (8), David Korten presents a powerful argument against the globalization agenda. He writes:

"Economic globalization is neither in the human interest nor inevitable. It is axiomatic that political power aligns with economic power. The larger the economic unit, the larger its dominant players, and the more political power becomes concentrated in the largest corporations. The greater the political power of corporations and those aligned with them, the less the political power of the people, and the less meaningful democracy becomes."

Korten develops his views in a forthcoming book, "The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism". Speaking on this theme at the 1998 Schumacher Lectures, he said:

"The challenge is to replace the global capitalist economy with a properly regulated and locally rooted market economy that invests in the regeneration of living capital, increases net beneficial economic output, distributes that output justly and equitably to meet the basic needs of everyone, strengthens the institutions of democracy and the market, and returns money to its proper role as the servant of productive activity.

"It should favour smaller local enterprise over global corporations, encourage local ownership, penalise financial speculation, and give priority to meeting the basic needs of the many over providing luxuries and diversions for the wealthy few. In most aspects it should do exactly the opposite of what the global capitalist economy is doing."

He added: "To understand what is happening we must educate ourselves about the nature of money and the ways of those who decide who will have access to it and who will not." (9)

Michael Rowbotham discusses this subject in his insightful book "The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery and Destructive Economics" (10). Pointing out that money is largely created out of debt by the banks and building societies, and that in the UK only 3% of the money in circulation is produced by the government, Rowbotham writes:

"If a monetary system is invalid or flawed, then the entire economy is based on the mathematics of error, and must be riddled with the effects. If the financial system upon which our economies are built is defective, and yet monetary considerations dominate our economic decisions, should we be surprised if the results are less than effective?"

The pivotal role of the monetary system as a causative factor in many of our social, economic and environmental problems is highlighted by the Global Economic Reform Campaign (11). This advocates several fundamental changes to the global financial architecture, including reform of the 'fractional reserve' banking system and a more equitable distribution of real wealth.

Several other campaigns have been initiated by grassroots activists in response to the MAI. One of these, the Citizens' Public Trust Treaty (12), seeks to limit the power of transnational corporations and reverse the trend towards economic globalization. Other groups emphasise the need to decentralise our economic and political processes. Helena Norberg-Hodge, Director of the International Society for Ecology and Culture, argues that change must occur at local, national and international levels simultaneously. In her introduction to "Small is Beautiful, Big is Subsidised" (13), she writes:

"Decentralisation is about returning to a balance between the local economy and dependence on international trade; a balance between the rural and the urban, and a balance between the power of communities and distant, anonymous institutions."

It seems unlikely that this process of re-balancing the global power structure in favour of the majority and the ecosystem will be easily accomplished. But growing numbers of ordinary people in all parts of the world are accepting the challenge and discussing practical alternatives. With our social and ecological systems evidently under severe stress, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the cascading effects of Y2K computer failures will prove to be the straw that breaks the global economy's back. If so, we will need to be prepared.

Towards Gaia Consciousness

Radical monetary reform and a political renaissance founded on genuine democracy lie at the heart of the new social revolution, and define the political agenda for the 21st Century. But we must be careful to avoid repeating the same old mistakes in different ways.

Ken Wilber has been at the forefront of transpersonal research for the past twenty years. In one of his recent books, "A Brief History of Everything" (14), Wilber describes a simple yet sophisticated "four quadrant" model of reality. Like many others, he suggests that our adherence to the post-Enlightenment mechanistic paradigm is the root cause of our descent into what he calls the "flatland of the industrial grid". The old paradigm emphasised just two of the four quadrants -- the scientific and socio-economic, both dealing with the outer world -- at the expense of the other half of the map representing the inner oriented dimensions of culture and psychology/spirituality/consciousness. What we need to do now is re-integrate the four quadrants and apply a holistic approach to problem solving. Wilber writes:

"Gaia's main problems are not industrialization, ozone depletion, overpopulation, or resource depletion. Gaia's main problem is the lack of mutual understanding and mutual agreement in the noosphere about how to proceed with those problems. We cannot rein in industry if we cannot reach mutual understanding and mutual agreement based on a worldcentric moral perspective concerning the global commons. And we reach that worldcentric moral perspective through a difficult and laborious process of interior growth and transcendence. A global map won't do it. A systems map will not do it. An ecological map will not do it."

Wilber suggests that we have arrived at a fulcrum in the development of human consciousness and stand on the edge of a major evolutionary transformation comparable to the introduction of agriculture and industry. Placing the millennial crisis in this expanded context puts the challenges that lie ahead of us in perspective. In a sense we need to develop a multi-dimensional approach to resolving our collective problems. At one level we must deal with the immediate problems that face us with as much awareness as possible. At another level we have an evolutionary responsibility to make the changes in our socio-economic and political arrangements that will facilitate the process of collective transformation.

The unfolding global crisis seems to present a narrow window of opportunity that we cannot afford to squander.

When Systems Break Down

Just as the flaws in the ideology of free market capitalism and economic globalization are being ruthlessly exposed by the deepening worldwide recession, so Y2K reveals the trap of over-dependance on a globalized technology.

The growing systemic interdependance of our globalized world has rendered us all acutely vulnerable to knock on effects from problems in distant parts of the globe. It follows that even if the USA, the UK, Europe, Australia and the rest of the developed world were to reach the impossible target of bringing their systems up to 100% Y2K compliance, problems in Russia, China, Indonesia or Brazil could still cause serious worldwide disruption.

The global scale of the Y2K crisis was revealed in a BBC2 documentary called "Disaster: The Millennium Time Bomb" (15). Gerry Doherty, author of "Safety and the Year 2000", said:

"Within the embedded systems world there are a number of systems which are safety-related -- a pretty small percentage. And of those safety-related systems there's a very small percentage which will fail. And of those which will fail, there's a very small number which will lead on to what we would call disaster scenarios. But nonetheless, the statistics we've done suggests there *could* be something like twenty possibly serious safety-related incidents in the year 2000. And a major incident may be something like the Exxon Valdez oil spillage, or the Bhopal chemical explosion in India. I wouldn't expect to see them within the UK, but on a worldwide scale I would expect that we'll have a few problems somewhere."

The unprecedented Auckland power blackouts that occured in February-April 1998 give some indication of the kind of problems that can be anticipated in the event of a worst case scenario. The blackouts reduced New Zealand's premier financial district to a state of almost complete dislocation comparable to national emergency conditions in third world countries. With the available electricity reserved for emergency services, all normal operations in the city centre ground to a halt. Businesses could not function, shops had to close, restaurants became health hazards, and transport and communications in the city centre were disabled. Street and security lighting went off periodically, and at times Auckland resembled a wartime city during a blackout. The two month loss of power caused residents and businesses to be re-located out of the city and cost the economy billions of dollars.

In the wake of the blackouts Ross Stewart, Year 2000 Director of the Wilson White Corporation, wrote:

"...when the power supply ceases in a civilised and highly automated society, most things stop. Telephone exchanges don't operate, traffic lights don't work, the sewage pumping systems don't start, apartment dwellers aren't able to cook or sterilise food and water...

"This power failure has highlighted in the most graphic way possible what will happen if the Y2K bug brings down a major utility sometime in the next two years. We are now beginning to realise that while an interruption of a few hours is tolerable, a long-term interruption to a critical service provider (power, hospitals, sewage, telecommunications) is catastrophic." (16)

Bringing the issue closer to home, consider the implications of Y2K systems failures for someone who is dependent on a regular prescription of drugs to stabilise an illness. Under normal circumstances he or she obtains their computerised prescription from the GP and takes it to the pharmacist, who may need to place a computerised order with the supplier. The prescribed drugs will normally be delivered within 24 hours, and all is well.

But what if the pharmaceutical company is itself dependent on the supply of a vital ingredient from another country that has failed to deal with its Y2K problem? The ingredient supplier or the transport system may not be able to deliver the goods, the pharmaceutical company may not be able to supply the drug to the pharmacist, and people with illnesses will not receive their prescriptions. The NHS has been slammed for being well behind schedule in dealing with its enormous Y2K problem, and one authoritative estimate puts the likely number of Y2K related deaths in UK hospitals alone at between 6-10,000. (17)

If a similar analysis is applied to the food that arrives on the supermarket shelf via "just in time" delivery systems, or if we consider the implications of the banking or social security systems functioning with reduced efficiency, or of telecommunications breakdowns or public utility outages, it becomes clear that when we look ahead to the early months of the year 2000, we simply can't take anything for granted.

The British government, despite their low-key approach to public information, are certainly taking Y2K seriously. According to a front page headline article in The Guardian on November 17th, the army has been placed on standby to "airlift police from hotspot to hotspot in the event of a collapse in public services caused by the millennium computer bug".

The article continued:

"John Evans, chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, yesterday confirmed on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers that talks are going on with the military over their role in emergency civil defence planning because of the chances of civil disruption triggered by the computer bug problem." (18)

If contingency planning for worst case scenarios is being conducted at the highest levels, surely we need to do the same in our local communities and neighbourhoods. And yet many people -- even intelligent, battle-hardened social activists -- seem to find it difficult to comprehend the possible consequences of widespread systems failures. Some seem to go into a state of psychological denial that any real problems exist. But the potential for catastrophe is self-evident to anyone who thinks this thing through, and ignoring the problem is short sighted in the extreme.

What Comes Next?

Whether it's Y2K or some other systems failure that brings down the global economy, it's clear that we should be asking ourselves what kind of societies we want to live in. This dialogue will need to engage some radical thinking.

Clearly there's no way back from our hi-tech civilization to a lo-tech Garden of Eden. As Ken Wilber points out, each step forward in the evolution of consciousness includes the best of what has gone before and adds something new. Futurist thinking must include our continuing technological progress.

But if we are to avoid the descent into the worst nightmares of a Brave New World, a major shift in our approach to science and technology must occur. The promise and threat of new developments such as genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, must somehow be contained within an infinitely more enlightened and compassionate collective consciousness.

Perhaps Y2K will provide the impetus for a radical re-think of the way we design our social and technological systems. As knowledge management expert Ted Lumley writes:

"The Y2K problem is bringing to our awareness a 'design flaw' of major proportions. It is the same design flaw...that others are struggling with in terms of globalization versus bioregionalism in economic systems; i.e. that we are evolving 'robotic' or rationo-biological type systems designs rather than 'robocop' or bio-rational type systems designs."

He explains: "The design issue in our society is to what degree our systems should look like robocop (intuition over rationality) or like a robot (rationality over intuition). Social systems co-ordination webs have been largely organic and intuitive. However, (with) the coming of global communications and computing networks...we have unthinkingly opted for the (rational) robotic...instead of the (intuitive) robocop design.

"So the scenario is that society just added the 'computer' as a new subsystem or 'tool' within its web of organic and mechanical components. The new tool is built to be short-circuit free until the year 2000, at which time, all warranties cease...The computer-based co-ordinating web will not only 'fritz' in an unpredictable way within itself, the fritzed information it sends out...will amplify this chaotic signal by translating it into chaotic behaviors within and across the overall system." (19)

If Lumley is right, we clearly have a serious problem.

Organising For Community Preparedness

To prepare for the possibility (some would say inevitability) of a global systemic failure either in the year 2000 or soon afterwards, we will need to develop community resilience and preparedness. The term "community resilience" was coined by British born, US based socio-economist and change agent Robert Theobold. As a futurist he recognised the potential danger of Y2K some time ago and has set up a project that he hopes will involve up to 200 communities worldwide. (20)

The Community Resilience project aims to encourage development of the skills and resources needed to deal with the possibility of economic and social collapse. The beauty of the project is that even if Y2K turns out to be a damp squib and the global economy somehow muddles through the growing crisis without coming apart at the seams, the learning process involved in developing community resilience will itself be a positive outcome.

If we are to create new systems and structures to deal with potential catastrophes in our local communities, we will need to develop a new openness and learn to communicate and co-operate with each other in ways that we're usually only capable of in times of national emergency. In their excellent article "The Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation?" (21), John L. Petersen, Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers write:

"Y2K is a technology-induced problem, but it will not and cannot be solved by technology. It creates societal problems that can only be solved by humans. We must begin to address potential social responses. We need to be engaged in this discourse within our organizations, our communities, and across the traditional boundaries of competition and national borders. Without such planning, we will slide into the Year 2000 as hapless victims of our technology."

In practical terms, local community preparedness groups must come together for the purpose of carrying out contingency planning, auditing the needs of the vulnerable, and devising ways and means of dealing with the range of forseeable problems, such as power cuts, water shortages, bank closures and so on.

Since Leader of the House of Commons Margaret Beckett has acknowledged that the banking system is vulnerable to collapse if as little as 6% of people withdraw their cash at the same time (22), one avenue for community preparedness groups to explore is the setting up of local complementary currencies. There are already several hundred LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems) schemes operating in the UK, and these can play an important role in the community building that needs to be done.

With just a year to go before the millennium bomb goes off, we in the UK need to continue raising awareness of Y2K by all the means at our disposal. We have to hope and trust that sooner or later a critical mass of people will be alive to the issue and that community preparedness groups will begin to mushroom. This seems to be happening in the USA, where Y2K activists are now receiving the support of a congressional committee. Tom Atlee, a leading Y2K activist, writes:

"There are now over 100 (some say 150) Y2K community preparedness groups in the US...These groups are not being centrally organized; they are popping up like poppies, and finding each other through each other and building networks around themselves and out into the world. They are already self-organizing, and eager for help.

"In many places Y2K is bringing together stakeholders who've never talked together before, because businesses, community people, government agencies and nonprofits suddenly realize they're intricately tied to each other and can only survive Y2K disruptions through clarifying conversation...

"Conferences of specialists (futurists, bankers, Y2K programmers, mayors, etc.) are happening more and more, to caucus on their roles and needs during Y2K...

"Increasingly, people are realizing that Y2K raises the grain on hundreds of questions about our collective fate. How did this happen to us? Why hasn't it been fixed? What is the proper role of technology? In a complex society, who is responsible for system-generated effects? How much should we depend on technology and the global economy for our sustenance and meaning, compared to how much we depend on our neighbors and nature? What is the spiritual significance of Y2K?

"... Y2K is a problem of virtually infinite complexity, unpredictability and universality. Every effort to manage it is running up against those facts. Not only is no one in charge but it is becoming increasingly clear that no one is * going * to be in charge, or even * could * be. The more I work with it, the more I realize that Y2K is going to be a wild dance (starting early in 1999) with millions of dancers -- and everyone in the audience is going to be drawn into it. In the end, there will be no spectators." (23)

Conclusion

In summary, Y2K is a technical problem with an immovable deadline and unknown social consequences. We won't know how serious the effects will be until they happen, but it is acknowledged that there is potential for Y2K-related accidents in nuclear weapons systems and the nuclear power industry. The balance of expert opinion suggests a best-case scenario of escalating systems failures through 1999 and severe disruption to national infrastructures in the early weeks of the year 2000.

At the same time, fundamental flaws in the global economy are being exposed. Corporate globalization has induced a "rush to the bottom" in terms of living standards and environmental protection, leaving social and political chaos in its wake. The alternative is a re-balancing of our economic and political systems in favour of decentralised local control -- a process in which radical reform of the debt-based monetary system will be a key factor.

As Dee Hock suggests in the quotation at the start of this article, and as Ken Wilber and others affirm, it seems that we are living at a time of momentous change. The global crisis may be symptomatic of the passing of an age and the birth of a new Gaia-centered consciousness.

The prospect of widespread technological failure certainly gives us cause for reflection on the way our civilization has evolved. If there's a lesson to be learnt from the Y2K debacle, it is that the post-Enlightenment reductionist paradigm has ultimately failed us and that we need to develop a more natural and holistic approach to systems design.

The immediate challenge is to prepare ourselves and our communities as best we can for the possibility of technological and/or economic collapse. The fallout from Y2K may or may not turn out to be serious, but it's a fair assumpton that if the impact was to hit us today, our lack of preparedness at the local level would almost certainly result in serious social chaos. With a year to go before the worst effects of computer system failures start to occur, we still have time to "prepare for the worst and hope for the best."

Afterword

One of the most interesting comments I've heard on Y2K is that it acts very much like a Rorschach Test...what you see in the pattern of information is a reflection of your personality. If you're prone to doom and gloom, you'll find plenty to convince you that TEOTWAWKI is at hand. Alternatively, if you look at the world through rose coloured glasses, you'll need no persuading that Y2K will turn out to be a lot of hot air.

For a comprehensive discussion of the technical and social implications of Y2K by an experienced programmer who takes the middle path, I recommend a 40 page article entitled "The Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem" by Michael Goodfellow (24).

Goodfellow's bottom line?

"The worst thing you can do is sit around doing nothing, especially if you are a programmer. How are you going to answer people afterwards when they ask what you did to prevent this?"

References

(1) "The Trillion-Dollar Vision of Dee Hock". M. Mitchell Waldrop, Fast Company, issue 5

(2) "A Call to Action: The National and Global Implications of the Year 2000 Embedded Systems Crisis". Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D, http://www.year2000.com/archive/NFaction.html

(3) "Atom plants told to act on safety or risk disaster". Paul Brown, The Guardian, December 17, 1998

(4) "The Bug in the Bomb: The Impact of the Year 2000 Problem on Nuclear Weapons". Michael Craig, published by the British American Security Information Council. http://www.basicint.org/y2krept.htm

(5) "Time Bomb 2000: What the Year 2000 Computer Crisis Means to You" Edward Yourdon & Jennifer Yourdon (Prentice Hall PTR, 1998) pp 98-100

(6) "Y2K: So Many Bugs...So Little Time". Peter de Jager. http://www.sciam.com/1999/0199issue/0199dejager.html

(7) "Floods: can the misery and mayhem suffered by millions be prevented?". John Vidal, The Guardian, September 19, 1998

(8) "When Corporations Rule the World". David C. Korten (Kumarian Press/Berrett-Koehler, 1995)

(9) "Your Mortal Enemy". An edited and amended extract of David Korten's Schumacher Lecture in Bristol, October 17 1998. The Guardian, October 21 1998

(10) "The Grip of Death: a study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive economics". Michael Rowbotham (Jon Carpenter, 1998)

(11) Global Economic Reform Campaign. http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/9981/

(12) Citizens' Public Trust Treaty

(13) "Small is Beautiful, Big is Subsidised: How Our Taxes Contribute to Environmental Breakdown". Steven Gorelick (principal author). International Society for Ecology & Culture, October 1998, isecuk@gn.apc.org

(14) "A Brief History of Everything". Ken Wilber (Gill & Macmillan, 1996)

(15) "Disaster: The Millennium Time Bomb". BBC2/Stone City Productions, 1998

(16) "Blackout Lessons". Sean Morris, 'Civil Protection', issue 45, Summer/Autumn 1998, Year 2000 Date Change Special Edition

(17) Professor Mike Smith, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

(18) "Army on standby over bug". Alan Travis, The Guardian, November 17th, 1998

(19) "Y2K and a Design for Evolution". Email, December 1998. Copies available from pswann@easynet.co.uk

(20) Community Resilience Project http://www.resilientcommunities.org

(21) "The Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation?" John L. Petersen, Dr. Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers http://www.angelfire.com/ca/rhomer/social.html

(22) Millennium Compliance (Quarterly Review), Hansard columns 902-917, December 2nd, 1998, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/cm981202/debtext/81202-25.htm

(23) Tom Atlee. Email, December 1998.

(24)" The Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem". Michael Goodfellow, mgoodfel@best.com, http://www.best.com/~mgoodfel/y2k.htm

Y2K Recommended Reading and Resources

"The Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation?" John L. Petersen, Dr. Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers http://www.angelfire.com/ca/rhomer/social.html

"The Y2K Crisis: A Global Ticking Time Bomb?" Transcripts of keynote talks at a conference organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 2nd 1998 http://www.csis.org/html/y2ktran2.html

"The Bug in the Bomb: The Impact of the Year 2000 Problem on Nuclear Weapons". Michael Craig, published by the British American Security Information Council. http://www.basicint.org/y2krept.htm

"Nightmare on Main Street: The Approaching Y2K Disaster". Robert Sam Anson, 'Vanity Fair', January 1999. (Edited extracts published as "Apocalypse 2000? Millennium crisis: a ticking timebomb." The Observer, December 13, 1998)

"Y2K: The Millennial Reckoning", a Trend Monitor International report. Jan Wyllie, jan@trendmon.demon.co.uk http://www.trendmon.demon.co.uk

"The Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem". Michael Goodfellow, mgoodfel@best.com, http://www.best.com/~mgoodfel/y2k.htm

"Year 2000: who will do what and when will they do it? Towards actions." Douglass Carmichael: http://tmn.com/~doug

"Set Recovery On". Two articles by Infomagic in Cory Hamasaki's Y2K Weather Reports: http://www.kiyoinc.com/WRP100.HTM http://www.kiyoinc.com/WRP103.HTM

"Embedded Systems and the Year 2000 Problem". Mark A. Frautschi, Ph.D. http://www.tmn.com/~frautsch/y2k2.html

"Y2K Citizen's Action Guide". Edited by Eric Utne: http://www.utne.com/y2k

"Time runs out". A 24 page survey of the millennium bug, published in The Economist. http://www.year2000.com/archive/NFeconomist.html

"Time Bomb 2000: What the Year 2000 Computer Crisis Means to You". Edward Yourdon & Jennifer Yourdon (Prentice Hall PTR, 1998)

Community Resilience project: http://www.resilientcommunities.org

Y2K Community Project: http://www.y2kcommunity.org

The Arlington Institute's Project Y2K: http://www.azstarnet.com/~nuu/Other_DOCS/project_y2k_arlington.htm

Peter de Jager's Year 2000 website: http://www.year2000.com

Dr Edward Yardeni's Y2K Awareness website: http://www.yardeni.com/y2kaction.html

Tom Atlee's Co-Intelligence website: http://www.co-intelligence.org/y2k_breakthrough.html

Alan E. Lewis's Y2K website: http://www.provide.net/~aelewis/y2ko

Karen Anderson's Y2K website for women: http://www.y2kwomen.com/

---

VOLUME 2 CONTENTS