(The thought has been with me lately that it's time to move ahead of the
wave; time to cease being driven by events in the world, and to move
closer to the source of the wellspring of creative change itself. These
words from Robert Theobald indicate a similar shift in perspective, from
"narrowly fixed" to "expansive and inclusive". An atmosphere of welcoming
change is increasing among human beings everywhere. -Jeff Gordon)
I believe that the Y2K debate is changing its nature again. Here's my
attempt to state what is going on. Your feeback would be particualrly
relevant in view of our planned April 8 and May 27 broadcasts. I look
forward to hearing from you on this if you can make the time.
The growing split in the Y2K debate
by Robert Theobald
You are welcome to use this piece in any useful way by forwarding or
printing it. (It is useful for me to be informed if you do so.) If you
receive this as a forwarded message, and want to stay in touch with my
further writing please let me know. I am a Spokane-based speaker and
writer. My latest book is Reworking Success.
Many conventional discussions of Y2K suggest that the extreme positions
around the millennium bug are to see it as a bump in the road or the "end
of the world as we know it." It is now clear that the failure to deal with
the issue internationally guarantees that problems will be significant.
But more critically, some people now welcome the prospect that we shall
see the end of the world as we know it rather than fearing this result.
Great gulfs are opening up within the debate over Y2K. For most people,
the challenge is still to make sure that the bug, caused by listing dates
with two figures rather than four, does not disrupt the smooth functioning
of economies and societies. The ideal result for this group is that
January 1, 2000 comes and goes without disruption and is a non-event.
The number of informed people who believe that this can happen is now very
small. It is now clear that there will be disruptions. The only question
is the scale. A growing amount of effort is therefore going toward
"contingency" planning to make sure that approaches have been developed to
deal with the dangers that can emerge. The ideal is that there should be
as little disruption of the "normal" course of life as possible. There is
much controversy over what is required to achieve this result most
efficiently but for most of those working in this direction the goal is
completely clear.
The consensus about the return to past models is challenged by those who
are aware that the human race can only thrive if its dominant ways of
thinking and acting are profoundly different in the twenty-first century
than those in the twentieth. There are a very large number of people who
share this view although they are divided into a number of movements:
peace, environmental, common ground, right livelihood and many other
issues.
A lot of people in these groups are still ignoring the Y2K issues. Those
who are not are taking two profoundly different stances. One argues that
the critical need is to mobilize as much activity as possible around Y2K
so as to minimize suffering and breakdowns. They then argue that raising
broad issues of fundamental change is likely to get in the way of the
necessary mobilization and downplay their longer-run concerns.
The other group, to which I belong, argues that Y2K must be used as an
early warning of profound dangers ahead. It is like the canary in the mine
which used to warn of deadly gasses before they could be perceived by
miners. Y2K should serve as a wake-up call so that we become aware of the
fragility of the technological systems we have created in the second half
of the twentieth century, their unsustainability and their lack of
resilience.
This group also argues that the dilemmas of Y2K cannot be dealt with using
current patterns of organization and consciousness. We quote Einstein who
argued that problems could not be solved with the consciousness which
created them. Y2K calls out for cooperation across boundaries a
recognition that we need to hang together for otherwise we shall hang
separately.
In addition, this group argues that development of creative energy is far
more likely using a broad canvas than with a narrow emphasis on the Y2K
issue. It believes that people are already suffering from Y2K fatigue and
that only a broader vision can provide the scope for the large-scale
shifts which must take place in the near future to avoid major breakdowns
around the world.
Y2K is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a mindset which sets
human beings against each other and against nature. It is a symptom of a
world which emphasizes economics over society and the environment. It is
part of the short-run thinking of the industrial world.
I have been intensively involved in the Y2K issue for a year. I have
realized in the last few weeks that it is too narrow a container for the
work we have to do. It is no more than a warning sign showing the major
changes in thinking that are required as we learn to live in a world where
we must cooperate if we are to survive. We must also stop organizing to
achieve a machine-like socioeconomic system and learn to operate together
as fallible human beings.
To do this, we must realize that our real needs are spiritual rather than
materialistic. The most wonderful surprise is how many people share this
understanding. They may express it in different ways: from a religious
perspective or a desire to revive traditional values or from the vantage
point of an ever-growing number of spiritual traditions. But the
recognition is there. It is our challenge to give people an opportunity to
express it.
If we succeed we shall look back at the end of the twentieth century as
the end of the world as we knew it and rejoice.
1999 will be a tumultuous year. How do we cooperate to create strange
attractors which change dynamics in positive directions? For our process
answer see www.resilientcommunities.org
