y2k/gary north delusions

I've been reading gary north for quite awhile and think
he is quite brilliant on some issues. for example he was
quoting statistics about amt of time it takes to fix code,
cost per line, govt agencies etc. a long, long time ago.
he really zeroed in on the govt bureacrat "ostrichism"
early on.. 

anyway I hate to say that I think he is really losing his
mind lately.. no there are going to be some serious y2k problems,
but imho the bottom approaches "garbage".. any talk of riots,
mobs, martial law, stockpiling weaponry, roving bandits
etc. seems to me to be really way off base to say the least.
now people have been talking about this, but I've never seen
gary north go quite that crazy.

all the quoting of obscure, fictitious b-grade movies in this article
makes me think he is really living in a fantasy world. now
this is a shame because some of his research is some of the
most solid and ahead-of-time than anyone on the entire net,
by far. his site is a work of art in tedious archival,
compilation, indexing.

gary, take it easy. take a vacation. take a deep breath.

well posted for your own opinion

------- Forwarded Message


Gary North's REALITY CHECK
Issue #33
November 17, 1998


       CLOCKS TICK, BUT MOST PEOPLE IGNORE THE SOUND


     Tonight we will go through the Leonid meteor shower. 
Scientists tell us that this one will not match the 1966
shower, nor will it match the one a year and a day from
now.  But we will probably lose a few major satellites. 
Any company that has insured satellites has just entered a
higher-risk period.

     Astronomy is a precise science.  It can predict events
such as this one with remarkable accuracy.  The astronomers
do not know how intense this shower will be, but they know
for certain that tonight will be the highest density night. 
Some think it will be a bump in the highway, but others
think it could be worse for our satellites.  This reminds
me of y2k forecasts.

     I shall go out tonight to see the shooting stars.  I
was on top of a hill in a desert area in 1966, lying on the
trunk of a car, looking up.  I did not know about the
Leonids.  I just happened to be in the right place to see
them.  The shooting stars came every few minutes.  Never in
history had there been so many -- and records of the
Leonids go back to the tenth century.  I'll never forget
it.  I'll never forget y2k, either.


                   IGNORING THE OBVIOUS

     There are millions of people who know that y2k is
coming.  They will put this out of their minds until the
last minute.  They will pay no attention until events force
themselves on men's perception.  Then they will say, "Why
didn't anyone tell me?"  There are several answers: (1) the
watchmen did not believe the evidence; (2) risks to the
reputations of watchmen are high and rewards are few; (3)
almost no one would have listened anyway.

     Let me give another example.  I have mentioned in
"Remnant Review," but not on my Web site, since it is not a
y2k issue.  But it is surely an ignored deadline issue. 
Brady II goes into effect in just a few days: December 1. 
>From that day forward, U.S. residents will not be able to
buy a shotgun or a rifle without registering and paying a
fee.  Their names will be placed in an FBI computer, even
though this is illegal and the authorities know it's
illegal.  Where is the ACLU?  If this law applied only to
Blacks, the ACLU would be fighting it.  But since it
applies to everyone, we hear nothing.  

     There is a scene in "The Trigger Effect" where the two
male characters go into a gun store a few days after the
power has been off.  So do a lot of others.  They are told
that they cannot buy handguns.  There is a waiting period. 
But they can buy rifles and shotguns.  They buy a shotgun
with what little cash they can scrape together.

     As of December 1, this scene will be inaccurate. 
There will be an extra fee and the loss of privacy.

     The next step: a prohibition on private gun sales.  To
sell your gun to your next door neighbor, you will have to
take your gun to a gun dealer, who will register the
transaction and impose the 5-day waiting period.  The
President has said that it is his goal to shut down gun
shows.  I think he will be successful.

     Now, I'm not too worried about being in any computer. 
They will all be dead on 1/1/2000.  But what is obvious is
that those who dilly-dally now will find themselves
competing with people who have cash in 2000.  The collapse
of the banks over the next 16 months will transfer wealth
to the drug dealers on a massive scale.  They will have
cash, and they will be dealing in consumer goods that will
function as money.  Drugs are divisible, recognizable to
users, have a very high value-to-volume ratio, and are
durable.

     There is no doubt in my mind that in those
geographical areas where addiction is high, the drug lords
will take over the functions of government.  They will be
armed.  They will have money.  They are ruthless.  And the
police will be absent.  The inner cities of the United
States will become warlord societies within two years.

     Do not live anywhere near one of these areas.  The
criminals and addicts will fan out to extract wealth from
contiguous areas.  The police will be hard-pressed to
respond.  It will take time for martial law to be imposed,
and in most places, there will not be any military
presence.  Neighborhood defense will be based increasingly
on what local residents can muster.  If the locals are
disarmed, then they will be sitting ducks.  

     Neighborhoods will set up roadblocks with cars.  The
two-car family will become a one-car family.  The number-
one defensive measure a neighborhood can take is a
roadblock.  Criminals will have to get into a neighborhood
on foot.  They will have to get out the same way.

     Easy transportation will disappear in 2000.  Urban
life will move to a crawl.  On that day, you had better
have your water, your food, your non-hybrid seeds, and your
ammunition.

     Nobody else talks like this.  The watchmen are in the
"peace, peace" mode.  That's easy talk in the days before
the shooting starts.  The function of the watchman in the
Old Testament was military.  He warned of an invading army. 
That's what I'm doing.  The army has already invaded the
central cities.  It is well armed, well organized, and
ruthless.  It will move outward in 2000.

     Rent "The Friendly Persuasion."  It's a great movie. 
Pay close attention to the pacifism of the Quaker men in
the weeks before the Confederates invaded and the
militarism on the day before.  Talk of peace is cheap
before the shooting starts.

     What I am saying is obvious, but it is not politically
correct.  Today's watchmen are afraid of politically
liberal media reporters who might say, "These people
recommend buying guns!  Oh, woe!  Oh, horrors!"  I pay no
attention.  When I think of any reporter, I think: "Dead
man typing."  He will have no job, no career, no pension,
and no readers in 15 months.  He will be at the mercy of
those around him.  

     The mentality of the typical reporter is that of the
wife on "the Trigger Effect."  A liberal to the core, she
wanted no part of a shotgun.  The movie centers around her
ideology and the costs that it imposed.  It was not a good
movie, but it surely did portray her in a bad light, which
was well deserved.

     The clock is ticking.  Brady II is coming.  And
millions of people will walk into a Wal-Mart SuperCenter
next month and through all of next year and wonder: "Why
didn't someone tell me I would have to register this
transaction?"  (See the three reasons, above.)


                     ACROSS THE BOARD

     The shock of recognition that rifle-buyers will have
in the next few months will be paralleled in 1999 on an
international scale.  "What do you mean, I can't get cash
out of this bank?"  "What do you mean, you're out of solar
panels?"  (http://www.solarextreme.com)  "What do you mean,
I can't buy an inverter?"  "What do you mean, I can't get
delivery of a diesel generator?"  "What do you mean, you
don't have any deep cycle golf cart batteries?"  "What do
you mean I can't get delivery of a wood burning stove?"

     In 2000, it will be food, water, and electricity.  But
there will be no seller to complain to.  To complain, you
have to be able to speak to someone.  You won't be able to.

     Let's start with the basics: water.  An urban adult
uses 75 to 100 gallons of water a day.  This doesn't count
watering the lawn.  In 2000, how many people will be under
your roof?  Remember, your children may show up on your
doorstep, with wives and children.  Families will pull
together for survival in 2000.  Estimate the number of
people under your roof in 2000.  Now, how much water will
you need per day?

     What if the municipal water authority shuts down? 
It's goodbye showers.  Goodbye flushing toilets.  Hello sponge
baths and thunder mugs.  I don't think the reality of the
power cut-off will hit most families until someone says,
"Mom, the toilet won't flush."  Then the realization will
dawn at last.  A new, unpleasant world has arrived.

     Disease will begin to spread by the end of the week.

     Every time you take a shower, think of 2000.  Every
time you flush a toilet, think of 2000.  Ask yourself: How
will I do this in 2000?

     People will not do this.  No, not even those who have
read my warnings for two years.  They will not go through
the mental exercise of planning ahead for the basics -- and
water is near the top of any list of basics, right below
heat in the winter.

     There are millions of people who live in high-rise
apartments today.  There will be fewer in February, 2000.

     Let's assume that for the first three months in 2000,
you will not get paid.  The banks will be down.  You will
not be able to write a check or use a credit card.  What
will you do?

     What will your neighbors do?

     What if it's a year?

     If it's a year, it could be a decade.

     What will you do?  What is your exit strategy?

     Have you and your spouse sat down with pencil and
paper and written down your family's exit strategy?  No? 
Why not?  It's not that I haven't nagged you.

     What of your adult children?  Which ones will be able
to make it through three months of no paychecks?  Of those
that can't, how many will wind up on your doorstep in late
1999?  Or will you wind up on theirs?

     Should you head for the hills?  Wrong question.  What
solid evidence do you have that you shouldn't?

     Should you stay where you are?  What items will you
need in your possession in 2000 and 2001 to make your
decision to stay put a wise one for you and all of your
closest relatives, who will show up on your doorstep if
they know that you have prepared?  That is to say, have you
prepared for every close family member who will be in
trouble in 2000?  No?  Why not?

     The clock is ticking.

     Let me give a simple example.  How will you wash
clothes for everyone?  Let's assume that you have water. 
(Dreamer!)  You can buy a 40-lb. tub of Wind Fresh laundry
detergent from Sam's Club for $10.  It will do 160 loads. 
For one person, that's a year of washing.  What if you have
10 people under your roof?  You will need 10 tubs for just
one year.  But this product may not be readily available in
2001.  You had better buy 20 tubs.  I'll bet you don't have
20 tubs, even though you can afford $200.  You lack the
storage space.  More important, 20 tubs of detergent point
to all the other things you will need under conditions that
would mandate 20 tubs of detergent.  So, people refuse to
buy enough detergent.

     Now, what about your neighbors?  They will be dirty. 
Their clothes will be dirty.  You will be clean.  You will
not have lost 30 pounds.  You will be the target of envy on
a scale you can barely imagine today.  You will be
despised.  Will you be ready for this psychologically?

     Of course, you can warn your neighbors now.  They will
not prepare, but they will remember.

     There will be a stream of beggars at your door from
2000 onward.  You may know their names.  "Please, please,
we're desperate."  It won't be a lie.

     When a society loses the division of labor, it loses
just about everything that the urban "good life" requires. 
If you keep even a fraction of these things -- clean
clothes, for instance -- you will be resented.  Envy is a
powerful force.  "He doesn't deserve it.  It's not right
that he should have so much.  No one should have so much."

     Here is a piece of information you may not have. 
Sam's Club offers a special service.  It has a 50-page
notebook with all of its products listed, with order
numbers.  Go to the manager and ask for a copy.  Take it
home.  Make a shopping list.  You can order everything at
one time.  Rent a U-Haul or borrow a pick-up truck and pick
up everything.

     The average adult consumes 1000 lbs of food for a year. 
Half should be vegetables.  You can grow them.  Buy
non-hybrid seeds.  (http://arkinstitute.com)  Half 
can be grains.  You can buy 200 lbs of white rice at Sam's
Club for under $60.  The same for pinto beans.

     In terms of food, $300 will feed you for a year. 
You'll hate the taste by mid-2000, but you'll eat.  How
many of you will spend a whole $300 on food?  Not many. 
Why not?  Because if they might need this much food,
they'll need water, and they know they can't get enough
water in 2000.  They would have to move, or put in four
1,500-gallon cisterns and gutters, or buy a swimming pool. 
They won't do it.

     My suggestion: rent "The Trigger Effect."  Then make
up your mind about where you should live in 2000.

     For those who want a public presentation, which can be
used to persuade people who have not read much about y2k,
my Harrison, Arkansas y2k town meeting tape is effective. 
You can see representatives of the public utilities and a
local bank deal with y2k.  The question and answer session
is especially useful.  It sells for $39.95: 
call 903-839-8822.

- - --------------------------------------------
Reality Check
- - --------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message containing 
"unsubscribe" to: remnant-list-request@cliffslanding.com

If you have questions please contact ice@ballistic.com.


- - --------------60B23B773DFEE8A7DA22A23D--


- - --------------12214D0997E9CA46C4BB380C--


- ------- End of Forwarded Message


------- End of Forwarded Message

Looks like this one didn't make it out the first time around.
It's a little late. Sorry.

At 10:04 PM -0500 11/28/98, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>anyway I hate to say that I think he is really losing his
>mind lately.. no there are going to be some serious y2k problems,
>but imho the bottom approaches "garbage".. any talk of riots,
>mobs, martial law, stockpiling weaponry, roving bandits
>etc. seems to me to be really way off base to say the least.
>now people have been talking about this, but I've never seen
>gary north go quite that crazy.

	Not just crazy, flat out _wrong_ in at least one case:

>     Let's start with the basics: water.  An urban adult
>uses 75 to 100 gallons of water a day.  This doesn't count

	Like hell. Your average adult drinks at MOST 1 gallon a day,
including coffees sodas etc. It is _real_ difficult to drink over 1 gallon,
and you can seriously fuck your system up (mineral balances) if you drink
too much.

	I drink a LOT of (non-alcohol) fluid (as opposed to drinking
solids) a day, and I usually top out at 3 quarts, unless I am doing a long
distance ride.

	Let's round it up and call it one gallon for drinking.

	Showers: If you need more than 10-15 gallons, you are taking too long.

	Cooking: another gallon.

	Washing hands & dental hygene: 0ne more.

	Flushing toilets: 2-5 gallons per flush. Drinking one gallon of
water a day gets you flushing a _lot_, about 10 flushes a day (we are going
outer limits
on this one) that is 20 to 50 gallons a day.

	Washing dishes shouldn't take more than 3 for pots & pans, and one
for each persons utensils.

	Total: 40-75 (rounded up).

	That's for comfort. It also doesn't include watering the lawn or
washing the car.

>watering the lawn.  In 2000, how many people will be under
>your roof?  Remember, your children may show up on your
>doorstep, with wives and children.  Families will pull
>together for survival in 2000.  Estimate the number of
>people under your roof in 2000.  Now, how much water will
>you need per day?

	Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
toilets.

	So does the shower water.

	Then we only flush when we need to (i.e. not for every urination as
when drinking 3/4 a gallon a day (we are cutting back a little)  it's
mostly straight water anyway). So that eliminates almost all of the 20-50
gallons.

	Then we only shower when necessary, rather than every day, we
should be able to go 2-3 days between showers. No, it's not as pleasent,
but at least it's not unsanitary. So we'll say every other day droping our
daily consumption down to 5-7.5

	We won't touch cooking, and we'll increase the washing hands/other
hygene to 2 gallons to help make up for the lack of showers (actually,
doing this you could strecth to 3 days easily).

	So:
	drinking: 3/4 gallon (note that not all of this has to be "water",
fruit juice, sodas (at least until supplies run out) etc.)
	Showers: 5-7.5
	Cooking: 1 gallon
	Washing hands &etc. 2 gallons.
	Flushing Toilets: Allocate 10 just in case.
	Washing dishs: 4 (we aren't skimping here for hygene reasons).

	Total: 22-25.

	One half to one quarter Mr. Norths claims, and I'd bet my numbers
are still on the high side. This is also a fairly comfortable level
compared to pure survival.

>     What if the municipal water authority shuts down?
>It's goodbye showers.  Goodbye flushing toilets.  Hello sponge

	Only if you're a fucking idiot. You don't need potable water to
shower with, and you sure as hell don't need it to flush a toilet.

>     Let's assume that for the first three months in 2000,
>you will not get paid.  The banks will be down.  You will
>not be able to write a check or use a credit card.  What
>will you do?

	Live off those who planned ahead, stocked up spent thousands of
dollars on Food, Generators, guns & etc. but didn't spend 10 minutes making
sure their bodies were prepared & died of heart attacks trying to pull
start their generators to keep their computers running.

	(I'm mostly joking about the above)

>     What will your neighbors do?

	Run for the suburbs.

>     If it's a year, it could be a decade.

	If it's a decade, we're all fucked.

>     What will you do?  What is your exit strategy?

	Sit tight with several months of food (we have a largish lake
nearby, Lake Michigan, maybe you've heard of it) & asst. supplies and see
how things go. There are way too many variables to actually _plan_ an "exit
strategy", and no where to go.

>     Should you head for the hills?  Wrong question.  What
>solid evidence do you have that you shouldn't?

	Try this: NO WHERE TO GO. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH HILLS, AND EVERY ONE
IS HEADING THERE.

	YOU CAN'T RAISE (large amounts) OF FOOD IN THE HILLS W/OUT TRACTORS
AND SHIT, and you can't do it w/people shooting you to get your tractors,
food, and desiel.

>     Should you stay where you are?  What items will you

	Yes.

>need in your possession in 2000 and 2001 to make your

	Adequate food, warm clothing, & assorted stuff (including a couple
firearms for self protection.

>     Let me give a simple example.  How will you wash
>clothes for everyone?  Let's assume that you have water.
>(Dreamer!)  You can buy a 40-lb. tub of Wind Fresh laundry
>detergent from Sam's Club for $10.  It will do 160 loads.

	Ummm. Gary, how did people wash their clothes before they could buy
soap at the store?

	Why don't you print a recipe for Lye Soap?

	Because it's a lot easier being a blowhard.


>Their clothes will be dirty.  You will be clean.  You will
>not have lost 30 pounds.  You will be the target of envy on
>a scale you can barely imagine today.  You will be
>despised.  Will you be ready for this psychologically?

	Been despised all my life. I'm sure you know what that is like.

>local bank deal with y2k.  The question and answer session
>is especially useful.  It sells for $39.95:

	So over the next 12 months banks will fail, society will collapse,
and TWAWKIWE, and he is trying to get rich off it.

	Things that make you go Huh?
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

Petro wrote:
> Looks like this one didn't make it out the first time around.
> It's a little late. Sorry.
> 
> At 10:04 PM -0500 11/28/98, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> >anyway I hate to say that I think he is really losing his
> >mind lately.. no there are going to be some serious y2k problems,
> >but imho the bottom approaches "garbage".. any talk of riots,
> >mobs, martial law, stockpiling weaponry, roving bandits
> >etc. seems to me to be really way off base to say the least.
> >now people have been talking about this, but I've never seen
> >gary north go quite that crazy.
> 
> 	Not just crazy, flat out _wrong_ in at least one case:
> 
> >     Let's start with the basics: water.  An urban adult
> >uses 75 to 100 gallons of water a day.  This doesn't count
> 
> 	Like hell. Your average adult drinks at MOST 1 gallon a day,
> including coffees sodas etc. It is _real_ difficult to drink over 1 gallon,
> and you can seriously fuck your system up (mineral balances) if you drink
> too much.
> 
> 	I drink a LOT of (non-alcohol) fluid (as opposed to drinking
> solids) a day, and I usually top out at 3 quarts, unless I am doing a long
> distance ride.
> 
> 	Let's round it up and call it one gallon for drinking.
> 
> 	Showers: If you need more than 10-15 gallons, you are taking too long.

Come on people. We are talking SURVIVAL here. Can you ski your showers
if you do not have enough water?

The true answer is, if shit hits the fan and there is no water in the
faucet, almost all activity except drinking and washing hands and dishes
can be curtailed.

Even flushing toilets is not necessary as anyone can shit outside.

I am speaking out of personal experiences, living with water outages
while we were in the Russian countryside. It was no big deal, period.


> 	Cooking: another gallon.

It is included.

> 	Washing hands & dental hygene: 0ne more.
> 
> 	Flushing toilets: 2-5 gallons per flush. Drinking one gallon of
> water a day gets you flushing a _lot_, about 10 flushes a day (we are going
> outer limits
> on this one) that is 20 to 50 gallons a day.
> 
> 	Washing dishes shouldn't take more than 3 for pots & pans, and one
> for each persons utensils.

Much less. 

> 	Total: 40-75 (rounded up).

Total: 2-3.

> 	Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
> dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
> toilets.

get them to shit outside.
 
> >     What if the municipal water authority shuts down?
> >It's goodbye showers.  Goodbye flushing toilets.  Hello sponge
> 
> 	Only if you're a fucking idiot. You don't need potable water to
> shower with, and you sure as hell don't need it to flush a toilet.

Correct.

Gary North is not stupid. he realizes all this, as it is not
rocket science.

Then why he keeps telling all this?

The answer is, to peddle his wares.

I am not suggesting that Y2K is going to be a cakewalk. Quite possibly
not. But Gary North is not worth listening to because he is biased and
has a conflict of interests.

> >     Let's assume that for the first three months in 2000,
> >you will not get paid.  The banks will be down.  You will
> >not be able to write a check or use a credit card.  What
> >will you do?
> 
> 	Live off those who planned ahead, stocked up spent thousands of
> dollars on Food, Generators, guns & etc. but didn't spend 10 minutes making
> sure their bodies were prepared & died of heart attacks trying to pull
> start their generators to keep their computers running.

> 	(I'm mostly joking about the above)

I think that you had a good point... A long time ago I posted a "Skills
vs. guns" article to misc.survivalism. its point was, that in the long
run having good skills and health was more important than stocking up.

> >     Let me give a simple example.  How will you wash
> >clothes for everyone?  Let's assume that you have water.
> >(Dreamer!)  You can buy a 40-lb. tub of Wind Fresh laundry
> >detergent from Sam's Club for $10.  It will do 160 loads.
> 
> 	Ummm. Gary, how did people wash their clothes before they could buy
> soap at the store?
> 
> 	Why don't you print a recipe for Lye Soap?


You can make semi-good "soap" from animal fat and ash.


> 	Because it's a lot easier being a blowhard.
> 
> 
> >Their clothes will be dirty.  You will be clean.  You will
> >not have lost 30 pounds.  You will be the target of envy on
> >a scale you can barely imagine today.  You will be
> >despised.  Will you be ready for this psychologically?
> 
> 	Been despised all my life. I'm sure you know what that is like.

No biggie.

Besides, if you don't want to be despised, just don't be clean.


	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> Petro wrote: 
> >       Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
> > dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
> > toilets.
> 
> get them to shit outside.
> 

Bad bad bad bad bad bad *bad* idea.  This might be ok in the Russian
countryside, or any other countryside, but it an *excessively* bad thing
in just about any modern city.  If running water fails to run in the
cities, and people do as you suggest, and take their business outside,
it will not be long before tremendous numbers of people get sick and
die.  What with the high concentrations that people live in in most
cities, I expect that this'd make the Black Death look like a mild case
of the flu.

You cannot sustain a modern city without a working sewer system. 
Remember what cities were like in the middle ages?  I believe some
historians refer to them as "population sinks" for the surrounding
countryside.  Not for a lack of wealth or commerce, but for a lack of
sanitation.

Michael Hohensee

Michal Hohensee wrote:
> 
> 
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > 
> > Petro wrote: 
> > >       Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
> > > dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
> > > toilets.
> > 
> > get them to shit outside.
> > 
> 
> Bad bad bad bad bad bad *bad* idea.  This might be ok in the Russian
> countryside, or any other countryside, but it an *excessively* bad thing
> in just about any modern city.  If running water fails to run in the
> cities, and people do as you suggest, and take their business outside,
> it will not be long before tremendous numbers of people get sick and
> die.  What with the high concentrations that people live in in most
> cities, I expect that this'd make the Black Death look like a mild case
> of the flu.

Like I said, someone would need to build a latrine. That's all that's
needed.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> Michal Hohensee wrote:
> >
> >
> > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > >
> > > Petro wrote:
> > > >       Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
> > > > dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
> > > > toilets.
> > >
> > > get them to shit outside.
> > >
> >
> > Bad bad bad bad bad bad *bad* idea.  This might be ok in the Russian
> > countryside, or any other countryside, but it an *excessively* bad thing
> > in just about any modern city.  If running water fails to run in the
> > cities, and people do as you suggest, and take their business outside,
> > it will not be long before tremendous numbers of people get sick and
> > die.  What with the high concentrations that people live in in most
> > cities, I expect that this'd make the Black Death look like a mild case
> > of the flu.
> 
> Like I said, someone would need to build a latrine. That's all that's
> needed.
> 

Latrines aren't sufficient to the task.  In a city like NYC, latrines
might solve the problem for perhaps a week (assuming that we tear up all
the roads and sidewalks --something which we cannot do in time, even if
we wanted to), but then they'll be full, and there won't be any more
places the latrines can be rotated to.

Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
cities die.

Michael Hohensee

In <36694C23.B4CB9509@nyu.edu>, on 12/05/98 
   at 10:07 AM, Michal Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:

>Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
>last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
>we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
>cities die.

And you say this as if it is a bad thing.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

William H. Geiger III wrote:
> 
> In <36694C23.B4CB9509@nyu.edu>, on 12/05/98
>    at 10:07 AM, Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:
> 
> >Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
> >last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
> >we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
> >cities die.
> 
> And you say this as if it is a bad thing.
> 

Well it is, sorta.  I've got the misfortune to live in NYC, as do many
many many other people.  People who (like me) aren't particularly
interested in dying of disease and/or starvation.  If the "shit hits the
fan", we're in for a serious mess, in any event. :/

Michael Hohensee

Michael Hohensee wrote:
> 
> 
> William H. Geiger III wrote:
> > 
> > In <36694C23.B4CB9509@nyu.edu>, on 12/05/98
> >    at 10:07 AM, Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:
> > 
> > >Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
> > >last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
> > >we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
> > >cities die.
> > 
> > And you say this as if it is a bad thing.
> > 
> 
> Well it is, sorta.  I've got the misfortune to live in NYC, as do many
> many many other people.  People who (like me) aren't particularly
> interested in dying of disease and/or starvation.  If the "shit hits the
> fan", we're in for a serious mess, in any event. :/

Well, you've made a conscious choice, being fully aware of ramifications.

	- Igor.

In <366A26C2.30D6892E@nyu.edu>, on 12/06/98 
   at 01:40 AM, Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:

>William H. Geiger III wrote:
>> 
>> In <36694C23.B4CB9509@nyu.edu>, on 12/05/98
>>    at 10:07 AM, Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:
>> 
>> >Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
>> >last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
>> >we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
>> >cities die.
>> 
>> And you say this as if it is a bad thing.
>> 

>Well it is, sorta.  I've got the misfortune to live in NYC, as do many
>many many other people.  People who (like me) aren't particularly
>interested in dying of disease and/or starvation.  If the "shit hits the
>fan", we're in for a serious mess, in any event. :/

It is your choice to live in the cesspool know as NYC. I am originally
from Chicago, I got the hell out of there the 1st chance I got and have
never looked back.

Large metropolitan complexes are obsolete and their problems greatly
outweigh their benefits. I am a land owner and *like* owning land, I enjoy
having grass and trees, streams to fish and swim in, not living in a cage
with my neighbors on the other side of a paper thin wall. I have enough
land that I could plow it up and do subsistence farming to survive if the
collapse ever comes (subsidized with fishing and hunting).

Why anyone would want to live like a rat is beyond me.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

"William H. Geiger III" wrote:
>
> Why anyone would want to live like a rat is beyond me.
> 

And me.  Sadly, I have little choice, as I'm stuck with attending NYU
for the present.  That shouldn't be a problem soon, assuming I succeed
in transferring to a nicer place.

Michael Hohensee

William H. Geiger III wrote:
> 
> In <366A26C2.30D6892E@nyu.edu>, on 12/06/98
>    at 01:40 AM, Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:
> 
> >William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >>
> >> In <36694C23.B4CB9509@nyu.edu>, on 12/05/98
> >>    at 10:07 AM, Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:
> >>
> >> >Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
> >> >last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
> >> >we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
> >> >cities die.
> >>
> >> And you say this as if it is a bad thing.
> >>
> 
> >Well it is, sorta.  I've got the misfortune to live in NYC, as do many
> >many many other people.  People who (like me) aren't particularly
> >interested in dying of disease and/or starvation.  If the "shit hits the
> >fan", we're in for a serious mess, in any event. :/
> 
> It is your choice to live in the cesspool know as NYC. I am originally
> from Chicago, I got the hell out of there the 1st chance I got and have
> never looked back.

I've been to Chicago exactly once.  I went to the Sears Tower,
and with the exception of the lake, *ALL* I could see was city
and smog!  I will not go back.


> Large metropolitan complexes are obsolete and their problems greatly
> outweigh their benefits. I am a land owner and *like* owning land, I enjoy
> having grass and trees, streams to fish and swim in, not living in a cage
> with my neighbors on the other side of a paper thin wall. I have enough
> land that I could plow it up and do subsistence farming to survive if the
> collapse ever comes (subsidized with fishing and hunting).

My "cage" is in the suburbs, but I have to agree, it is still
a cage.  I can't wait to get my own land.

> Why anyone would want to live like a rat is beyond me.

Some people are born and raised that way.  They don't know 
anything else.  And what they don't know, scares them.

-Doug
www.TheServerFarm.net

At 3:09 PM -0500 12/6/98, William H. Geiger III wrote:

>Large metropolitan complexes are obsolete and their problems greatly
>outweigh their benefits. I am a land owner and *like* owning land, I enjoy
>having grass and trees, streams to fish and swim in, not living in a cage
>with my neighbors on the other side of a paper thin wall. I have enough
>land that I could plow it up and do subsistence farming to survive if the
>collapse ever comes (subsidized with fishing and hunting).
>
>Why anyone would want to live like a rat is beyond me.

	All night grocery stores within walking distance.

	Ready access to work and entertainment.

	10 different "ethnicities" of restraunts within walking distance
(if you consider "all night diner" to be an "ethnicity").

	Decent Mass Transit.

	Very little Country Music on the radio, and NO hog reports.

	Oh, and I haven't owned a car in 6 years.

	I don't really _like_ living in Chicago, but I'd like living in the
middle of BFE even less.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

Michal Hohensee wrote:
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > Michal Hohensee wrote:
> > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > > Petro wrote:
> > > > >       Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
> > > > > dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
> > > > > toilets.
> > > >
> > > > get them to shit outside.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Bad bad bad bad bad bad *bad* idea.  This might be ok in the Russian
> > > countryside, or any other countryside, but it an *excessively* bad thing
> > > in just about any modern city.  If running water fails to run in the
> > > cities, and people do as you suggest, and take their business outside,
> > > it will not be long before tremendous numbers of people get sick and
> > > die.  What with the high concentrations that people live in in most
> > > cities, I expect that this'd make the Black Death look like a mild case
> > > of the flu.
> > 
> > Like I said, someone would need to build a latrine. That's all that's
> > needed.
> > 
> 
> Latrines aren't sufficient to the task.  In a city like NYC, latrines
> might solve the problem for perhaps a week (assuming that we tear up all
> the roads and sidewalks --something which we cannot do in time, even if
> we wanted to), but then they'll be full, and there won't be any more
> places the latrines can be rotated to.

Why, shit is actually pretty compact. usually with latrines, the liquid
filtrates out, and the compressed shit does not take too much space.

If you dig a deep enough hole (2-3 yards) it should last for a long,
long time. I estimate that a human being produces about 1/2 to 1lb
of hard waste per day, some are more full of it, some less. Let's settle
on one lb per day.

Let's see, a hole that is 5 yards wide, 3 yards deep, and, say, 2 yards
wide, is about 30 cubic yards. It could take about 40 tons of hard
compressed waste, that is, 80 thousand man-days of shitting can be
compressed in it.

You definitely need some heavy machinery to dig this kind of hole
(and then you have to build smoe kind of frame over it to prevent people
from falling into it if it collapses), but it is not hard and can even
be done in a catastrophic scenario.

That's a lot!!! Let's see,a high rise building with 50 floors and 10
apartments in each floor, that's about 1200 people. The latrine would
last them what, about sixty days! And then they can dig another one.

> Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
> last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
> we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
> cities die.

Not in the short run. They could survive for a while.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> Michael Hohensee wrote:
> > Latrines aren't sufficient to the task.  In a city like NYC, latrines
> > might solve the problem for perhaps a week (assuming that we tear up all
> > the roads and sidewalks --something which we cannot do in time, even if
> > we wanted to), but then they'll be full, and there won't be any more
> > places the latrines can be rotated to.
> 
> Why, shit is actually pretty compact. usually with latrines, the liquid
> filtrates out, and the compressed shit does not take too much space.
> 
> If you dig a deep enough hole (2-3 yards) it should last for a long,
> long time. I estimate that a human being produces about 1/2 to 1lb
> of hard waste per day, some are more full of it, some less. Let's settle
> on one lb per day.
> 
> Let's see, a hole that is 5 yards wide, 3 yards deep, and, say, 2 yards
> wide, is about 30 cubic yards. It could take about 40 tons of hard
> compressed waste, that is, 80 thousand man-days of shitting can be
> compressed in it.
> 
> You definitely need some heavy machinery to dig this kind of hole
> (and then you have to build smoe kind of frame over it to prevent people
> from falling into it if it collapses), but it is not hard and can even
> be done in a catastrophic scenario.
> 
> That's a lot!!! Let's see,a high rise building with 50 floors and 10
> apartments in each floor, that's about 1200 people. The latrine would
> last them what, about sixty days! And then they can dig another one.

This assumes that we can compress it this much, which assumes that we
have sufficient machinery.  It further assumes that we will be able to
ignore the "wet" component of human waste.  You can't just pour it down
the drains.

Next, we should realize that these latrines are themselves not going to
be particularly sanitary, and it would be most unwise to use them for
any extended period of time.  Hell, even *with* flush toilets, I've seen
people squatting down in subway stations to take a leak not more than 5
feet from the restroom.

Further, we should realize that for the above reason, people are not
going to be particularly motivated to use these latrines.  After all,
nobody wants to hold it for a long time while they wait in line to take
a leak, just for the privilege of relieving themselves in disease
central.  You're going to see shit in the street in any case.

Finally, even if we dig these holes, (and they're *going* to be bigger
than what you describe, as they must contain liquid, as well as solid
waste), we're going to end up messing up the roads something fierce. 
Big cities *need* roads to transport life-critical items.  If we dig
them up, we're in even worse trouble.

> > Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
> > last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
> > we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
> > cities die.
> 
> Not in the short run. They could survive for a while.
> 
>         - Igor.

In the *very* short run.  Like, say, a few weeks.  That is if the food
doesn't stop coming in first --then things finish up a bit sooner.

Michael Hohensee

Michael Hohensee wrote:
> 
> 
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > 
> > Michael Hohensee wrote:
> > > Latrines aren't sufficient to the task.  In a city like NYC, latrines
> > > might solve the problem for perhaps a week (assuming that we tear up all
> > > the roads and sidewalks --something which we cannot do in time, even if
> > > we wanted to), but then they'll be full, and there won't be any more
> > > places the latrines can be rotated to.
> > 
> > Why, shit is actually pretty compact. usually with latrines, the liquid
> > filtrates out, and the compressed shit does not take too much space.
> > 
> > If you dig a deep enough hole (2-3 yards) it should last for a long,
> > long time. I estimate that a human being produces about 1/2 to 1lb
> > of hard waste per day, some are more full of it, some less. Let's settle
> > on one lb per day.
> > 
> > Let's see, a hole that is 5 yards wide, 3 yards deep, and, say, 2 yards
> > wide, is about 30 cubic yards. It could take about 40 tons of hard
> > compressed waste, that is, 80 thousand man-days of shitting can be
> > compressed in it.
> > 
> > You definitely need some heavy machinery to dig this kind of hole
> > (and then you have to build smoe kind of frame over it to prevent people
> > from falling into it if it collapses), but it is not hard and can even
> > be done in a catastrophic scenario.
> > 
> > That's a lot!!! Let's see,a high rise building with 50 floors and 10
> > apartments in each floor, that's about 1200 people. The latrine would
> > last them what, about sixty days! And then they can dig another one.
> 
> This assumes that we can compress it this much, which assumes that we
> have sufficient machinery.  It further assumes that we will be able to
> ignore the "wet" component of human waste.  You can't just pour it down
> the drains.

No, the wet component filtrates out of the hole, into the soil.

Compression happens automaitcally.

> Next, we should realize that these latrines are themselves not going to
> be particularly sanitary, and it would be most unwise to use them for
> any extended period of time.  Hell, even *with* flush toilets, I've seen
> people squatting down in subway stations to take a leak not more than 5
> feet from the restroom.

Yeah, they are not too sanitary, but it is livable.

I refer you to the book "Where there is no doctor" that talks
about it. (a great book, all in all)

> Further, we should realize that for the above reason, people are not
> going to be particularly motivated to use these latrines.  After all,
> nobody wants to hold it for a long time while they wait in line to take
> a leak, just for the privilege of relieving themselves in disease
> central.  You're going to see shit in the street in any case.

I suspect that this will not be happening a lot in the cleaner
parts of the city.

> Finally, even if we dig these holes, (and they're *going* to be bigger
> than what you describe, as they must contain liquid, as well as solid

liquid disspiates.

> waste), we're going to end up messing up the roads something fierce. 
> Big cities *need* roads to transport life-critical items.  If we dig
> them up, we're in even worse trouble.
> 
> > > Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
> > > last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
> > > we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
> > > cities die.
> > 
> > Not in the short run. They could survive for a while.
> > 
> >         - Igor.
> 
> In the *very* short run.  Like, say, a few weeks.  That is if the food
> doesn't stop coming in first --then things finish up a bit sooner.

Well, if you have no food, you make no shit.

	- Igor.

At 10:10 AM -0500 12/5/98, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>In <36694C23.B4CB9509@nyu.edu>, on 12/05/98
>   at 10:07 AM, Michal Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu> said:
>
>>Then we're back to doing it in the open.  Less concentrated cities might
>>last a while longer, but not much longer.  There's no getting around it,
>>we *need* working sewer systems to have modern cities.  Otherwise, the
>>cities die.
>
>And you say this as if it is a bad thing.

	When the cities start dying, their population--hungry and
diseased--is heading your way. Some of them armed. Some ex-soldiers, some
ex-cops.

	You may be badder than most of them, but are you good enough to
kill them all?
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

Michal Hohensee wrote:
> 
> 
> Latrines aren't sufficient to the task.  In a city like NYC, latrines
> might solve the problem for perhaps a week (assuming that we tear up all
> the roads and sidewalks --something which we cannot do in time, even if
> we wanted to), but then they'll be full, and there won't be any more
> places the latrines can be rotated to.


One obvious advantage to living in the penthouse of a highrise.  Of
course, the elevators may not be working. The elevator shaft may make an
effective latrine though.

City people may be up to their eyeballs in sh*t.  This requires the
availability of raw materiel to produce however, which is predicated on
gas pumps working to fuel transportation of foodstuffs into the hive.  I
suppose horses could make a come-back, but then we're back to piles of
sh*t again.

Current waste disposal conventions such as sewers and trash removal
don't actually magically make this stuff disappear.  In NYC it all ends
up in the Atlantic latrine, where it gets picked up by the gulf stream
and ends up being deposited on Florida beaches after a long sea journey.
There are so many plastic bags bearing logos in the sargasso sea, it
looks like it has been sold off to corporate interests for advertizing
purposes.

I went out fishing in this vicinity a few weeks ago and caught 3 sea
birds (released alive) and only one fish.  On thinking it over, it was
obvious why we caught the birds -- there aren't any fish to catch, so
the birds were hungry enough to go for a lure. Colloform counts in the
mid-Atlantic approach that of an unwashed WC.

Its no better on the other coast, in San Francisco there is an annual
paragraph in the Chron, usually buried near the last page, about (yet)
another *accidental* release of 12 million gallons of raw untreated
sewage, into the bay.  Funny how these accidents happen in december
every year.  We really are the society that believes in *out of sight,
out of mind* solutions.

There is an opportunity in this I suppose,  corner the market on
chemical toilets and reverse osmosis water makers in a big city next
year, and you're laughing. Of course your exit strategy should take into
account the possibility of being taken over in the *public good*.

Hong Kong has a good system for dealing with the flush problem.  When
the sewer system was put in (Japanese occupied, WWII period), all
buildings were double plumbed with fresh water for drinking, cooking and
washing, and sea water for flushing.  With the way most city water
tastes now, maybe the existing plumbing could be turned over to
non-potable water distribution for washing + flushing.  Distribution of
drinking water would be as it is in LA today.

That's the fun part, figuring out how it could all be made to work.

Unfortunately it's more likely that the sheeple will cry out for guvmint
intervention to continue the flow of goodies, to which the western world
has become addicted.

IMHO, the military will be brought in to dig the latrines. Hoarders will
be strung up for not redistributing their wealth in approved socialist
style. Rewards will be posted for informing on a neighbor who is (may
be) a hoarder (5% of the take?). Gas will be reclassified as a public
resource for the duration of the emergency. The military will bring in
the K rations, until it becomes obvious that relocating the
citizen-units to resettlement camps on the outskirts is easier to
manage.  Those who control the sources of food production will also be
drafted into this new(er) deal. Anyone left over from this
redistribution, will be classified as a public enemy and fair game.

This is the perfect opportunity for the state to offer more security in
exchange for reduced liberty.

Was it on this list that I saw the posting about the 300 trucks of army
rations a day being stashed in some Oklahoma(?) caves?

The Hudson River on the west side of Manhattan reportedly
has twelve feet of shit on its bottom, and a permit from the US
Corp of Engineers is needed to disturb it for pier construction
and repair -- and to extend the island for yet another criminal
expansion for the public good: next up is another hotshit
Guggenheim satellite museum by Frank Gehry to match his 
Balboa big holer.

Many sewage lines of the West Side still dump raw sewage
into the river while plans for new sewer systems languish for
lack of funding -- the most recent plant on the Hudson cost in 
excess of $1 billion, has a park on top, is an architectural award
winner, and still stinks like Madonna in church. Though less 
than the surrounding nabes from which the gagging aliens
flee to the shit plant deck which is a 100 feet above the
river and offers Titanic like panoramas, that is, far enough above
the river that the night's floaters/skin-bros are overlookable.

Tis true that rivers and oceans are prosperity's sewage treatment
system, as ever, the best recycling system ever confected by nature 
to handle the effluvia of progress, for refreshing water, air and 
importing cheap-labor illegals (now how to stop them fucking
for recreation, their brats siphoning our hard-stole American birthright 
to profit by the globe's suffering, hurray we got Ks of Terrorist Nukes).

Still, environmental terrorism is booming. Cleanup of the National
Security Apparatus will take decades and $ trillions. Health damage
remediation will take many times that. Shit in streets is a puny task in
comparison to those, not even worth planning for -- well, dog shit
is a big headache in Guiliani's disorderly mind.

Yes, NYC as with other large cities are dumps for the rest of the
country. Yes, going to the country makes me gag -- pity the poor 
rubes, how can they bear the lack of civilized rot and stench.
Oh well, it's TCM's evolution in action: only shit-innoculated mutants 
will inhale the sublime Y2K halitosis of the programmers of built-in
breakdown, vainglorious national planners.

At 11:01 AM 12-5-98 -0500, Soren wrote:
>City people may be up to their eyeballs in sh*t.  This requires the
>availability of raw materiel to produce however, which is predicated on
>gas pumps working to fuel transportation of foodstuffs into the hive.  I
>suppose horses could make a come-back, but then we're back to piles of
[y2k latrine analysis snipped]

I note for the record that this latest thread represents a serious and
probably departure in tone from cypherpunkly nose-in-the-air dismissals of
Y2K problems as recently as 6 or 7 months ago.

-Declan

Soren wrote:
> 
> Michal Hohensee wrote:
> >
> >
> > Latrines aren't sufficient to the task.  In a city like NYC, latrines
> > might solve the problem for perhaps a week (assuming that we tear up all
> > the roads and sidewalks --something which we cannot do in time, even if
> > we wanted to), but then they'll be full, and there won't be any more
> > places the latrines can be rotated to.
> 
> One obvious advantage to living in the penthouse of a highrise.  Of
> course, the elevators may not be working. The elevator shaft may make an
> effective latrine though.

A temporary solution, at best.  You still have to go down to the ground
to shop, go to work, etc.  Besides, even if you don't get infected
directly from the offal on the ground, you can still be infected by
other people.  

> Current waste disposal conventions such as sewers and trash removal
> don't actually magically make this stuff disappear.  In NYC it all ends
> up in the Atlantic latrine, where it gets picked up by the gulf stream
> and ends up being deposited on Florida beaches after a long sea journey.
> There are so many plastic bags bearing logos in the sargasso sea, it
> looks like it has been sold off to corporate interests for advertizing
> purposes.

Yah, but they are pretty good at siphoning the stuff out of the city,
where people live, which is the point.  *Where* it's siphoned to may not
be the most intelligent place, but as long as it's not next to us, we
don't get sick and die nearly as often.  I'm not saying that existing
sewer systems are perfect, but they *are* keeping us alive. 

Michael Hohensee

At 3:48 PM -0500 12/4/98, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>> 	Not just crazy, flat out _wrong_ in at least one case:
>> >     Let's start with the basics: water.  An urban adult
>> >uses 75 to 100 gallons of water a day.  This doesn't count
>> 	Like hell. Your average adult drinks at MOST 1 gallon a day,
>> including coffees sodas etc. It is _real_ difficult to drink over 1 gallon,
>> and you can seriously fuck your system up (mineral balances) if you drink
>> too much.
>> 	I drink a LOT of (non-alcohol) fluid (as opposed to drinking
>> solids) a day, and I usually top out at 3 quarts, unless I am doing a long
>> distance ride.
>> 	Let's round it up and call it one gallon for drinking.
>> 	Showers: If you need more than 10-15 gallons, you are taking too long.
>Come on people. We are talking SURVIVAL here. Can you ski your showers
>if you do not have enough water?

	In the first block he was talking about _normal_ _day_to_day_ water
usage. I was attacking that point.

>The true answer is, if shit hits the fan and there is no water in the
>faucet, almost all activity except drinking and washing hands and dishes
>can be curtailed.

	Not for long periods of time. General cleanlyness IS VERY important
in survival situations. Clean skin and clothes help prevent infections from
common wounds (like barking your shin against something, or a scratch from
a tree branch &etc.)

>Even flushing toilets is not necessary as anyone can shit outside.

	Not in a crowded enviroment, that being a mid-sized town to a large
city.

>I am speaking out of personal experiences, living with water outages
>while we were in the Russian countryside. It was no big deal, period.

	Countryside.

>> 	Cooking: another gallon.
>It is included.

	Included in what? The pasta? The rice? The beans?

	I am not talking about a camping trip here, I am talking about
living off stored food for one to three months (anything longer (IMO) takes
VERY VERY different preperations.

>Much less.
>> 	Total: 40-75 (rounded up).
>Total: 2-3.

	In a max survival do-or-die situation, yes. For long term health,
no. and besides, that was a number assuming "normal" usage.

>> 	Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
>> dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
>> toilets.
>get them to shit outside.

	Why, so bacteria can fester, and things like dystensia (spelled
wrong, bacteria that causes "the shits" and other stomach problems) and
other diseases run rampant?

>I am not suggesting that Y2K is going to be a cakewalk. Quite possibly
>not. But Gary North is not worth listening to because he is biased and
>has a conflict of interests.

	I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the biggest problem with
Y2K is not going to be technical, but the Cultists & Gun Nuts (as a
distinct group from survivalists who simply wish to get on with their
lives) realize that it isn't the Apocolypse, and then seek to make it so.

>> 	Live off those who planned ahead, stocked up spent thousands of
>> dollars on Food, Generators, guns & etc. but didn't spend 10 minutes making
>> sure their bodies were prepared & died of heart attacks trying to pull
>> start their generators to keep their computers running.
>> 	(I'm mostly joking about the above)
>I think that you had a good point... A long time ago I posted a "Skills

	Like I said, mostly.

>vs. guns" article to misc.survivalism. its point was, that in the long
>run having good skills and health was more important than stocking up.

	Bet they tried to run you out of there, they don't want to hear
that kinda stuff, they want to hear how to get the most out of their 4X4,
argue over whether the AK is better than the M-16 (hint, if you have to
shoot more than a clip, you're fucked) for a "survival" situation.

>> >     Let me give a simple example.  How will you wash
>> >clothes for everyone?  Let's assume that you have water.
>> >(Dreamer!)  You can buy a 40-lb. tub of Wind Fresh laundry
>> >detergent from Sam's Club for $10.  It will do 160 loads.
>>
>> 	Ummm. Gary, how did people wash their clothes before they could buy
>> soap at the store?
>>
>> 	Why don't you print a recipe for Lye Soap?
>You can make semi-good "soap" from animal fat and ash.

	That is what "lye" soap is (basically)

>> 	Been despised all my life. I'm sure you know what that is like.
>No biggie.
>Besides, if you don't want to be despised, just don't be clean.

	That is not an option.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

Petro wrote:
> At 3:48 PM -0500 12/4/98, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> >> 	Not just crazy, flat out _wrong_ in at least one case:
> >> >     Let's start with the basics: water.  An urban adult
> >> >uses 75 to 100 gallons of water a day.  This doesn't count
> >> 	Like hell. Your average adult drinks at MOST 1 gallon a day,
> >> including coffees sodas etc. It is _real_ difficult to drink over 1 gallon,
> >> and you can seriously fuck your system up (mineral balances) if you drink
> >> too much.
> >> 	I drink a LOT of (non-alcohol) fluid (as opposed to drinking
> >> solids) a day, and I usually top out at 3 quarts, unless I am doing a long
> >> distance ride.
> >> 	Let's round it up and call it one gallon for drinking.
> >> 	Showers: If you need more than 10-15 gallons, you are taking too long.
> >Come on people. We are talking SURVIVAL here. Can you ski your showers
> >if you do not have enough water?
> 
> 	In the first block he was talking about _normal_ _day_to_day_ water
> usage. I was attacking that point.
> 
> >The true answer is, if shit hits the fan and there is no water in the
> >faucet, almost all activity except drinking and washing hands and dishes
> >can be curtailed.
> 
> 	Not for long periods of time. General cleanlyness IS VERY important
> in survival situations. Clean skin and clothes help prevent infections from
> common wounds (like barking your shin against something, or a scratch from
> a tree branch &etc.)

Well... The answer is that there is much less washing needed for
survival than it is needed for day to day civilized American life.

For instance, I change my shirts every day. If shit hits the fan,
you can wear a shirt for two weeks. Similar story is with other
clothes.

> >Even flushing toilets is not necessary as anyone can shit outside.
> 
> 	Not in a crowded enviroment, that being a mid-sized town to a large
> city.

Come one, you can set up big latrines outside houses.

> >I am speaking out of personal experiences, living with water outages
> >while we were in the Russian countryside. It was no big deal, period.
> 
> 	Countryside.
> 
> >> 	Cooking: another gallon.
> >It is included.
> 
> 	Included in what? The pasta? The rice? The beans?

Well, yeah, of course. With pasta, you can make soup and eat the
water, too.

> 	I am not talking about a camping trip here, I am talking about
> living off stored food for one to three months (anything longer (IMO) takes
> VERY VERY different preperations.

Well, yes, but still you need no more than 3 gallons of water,
which was my main contention.

> >Much less.
> >> 	Total: 40-75 (rounded up).
> >Total: 2-3.
> 
> 	In a max survival do-or-die situation, yes. For long term health,
> no. and besides, that was a number assuming "normal" usage.

It is entorely possible to live a decent life off of 3 gallons of
water per day. I am speaking out of my experience.
 
> >> 	Ok, so let's cut that back to what we _need_. First off, we don't
> >> dump our dish water down the drain, it gets "recycled" to flush the
> >> toilets.
> >get them to shit outside.
> 
> 	Why, so bacteria can fester, and things like dystensia (spelled

dysenteria

> wrong, bacteria that causes "the shits" and other stomach problems) and
> other diseases run rampant?

There is no problem with a properly set up outside toilet. 

There is a problem with eating unwashed food AND dirty hands.

To set up a toilet, dig a hole about 3-4 feet deep, fortify it
somewhat so that it would not cave in (for most soils fortification is
unnecessary). Then, build something above the hole so that people would
not be embarrassed to go there.

That's IT. Our country house in Russia used this system, it is reasonably
safe, etc. The whole neighborhood of houses used this system, as did
millions of other Russians. It _is_ safe. (Our apartment in Moscow had
a regular flush toilet bathroom).

> >I am not suggesting that Y2K is going to be a cakewalk. Quite possibly
> >not. But Gary North is not worth listening to because he is biased and
> >has a conflict of interests.
> 
> 	I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the biggest problem with
> Y2K is not going to be technical, but the Cultists & Gun Nuts (as a
> distinct group from survivalists who simply wish to get on with their
> lives) realize that it isn't the Apocolypse, and then seek to make it so.

A point I also made recently.

> >> 	Live off those who planned ahead, stocked up spent thousands of
> >> dollars on Food, Generators, guns & etc. but didn't spend 10 minutes making
> >> sure their bodies were prepared & died of heart attacks trying to pull
> >> start their generators to keep their computers running.
> >> 	(I'm mostly joking about the above)
> >I think that you had a good point... A long time ago I posted a "Skills
> 
> 	Like I said, mostly.
> 
> >vs. guns" article to misc.survivalism. its point was, that in the long
> >run having good skills and health was more important than stocking up.
> 
> 	Bet they tried to run you out of there, they don't want to hear
> that kinda stuff, they want to hear how to get the most out of their 4X4,
> argue over whether the AK is better than the M-16 (hint, if you have to
> shoot more than a clip, you're fucked) for a "survival" situation.

No, they were pretty nice. Not all of them agreed, but they had a
sensible discussion.

> >> >     Let me give a simple example.  How will you wash
> >> >clothes for everyone?  Let's assume that you have water.
> >> >(Dreamer!)  You can buy a 40-lb. tub of Wind Fresh laundry
> >> >detergent from Sam's Club for $10.  It will do 160 loads.
> >>
> >> 	Ummm. Gary, how did people wash their clothes before they could buy
> >> soap at the store?
> >>
> >> 	Why don't you print a recipe for Lye Soap?
> >You can make semi-good "soap" from animal fat and ash.
> 
> 	That is what "lye" soap is (basically)

Ahh, thanks.

	- Igor.

At 9:10 AM -0500 12/5/98, Soren wrote:
>Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>> Well... The answer is that there is much less washing needed for
>> survival than it is needed for day to day civilized American life.
>> For instance, I change my shirts every day. If shit hits the fan,
>> you can wear a shirt for two weeks. Similar story is with other
>> clothes.
>This is a good one.  What about the other half of American life (the
>uncivilized?). You know, the americans who live in those old
>refrigerator cartons? The ones that nobody sees?  I think they get more
>than 2 weeks out of their shirts.
>The sad fact is that city brats haven't got the faintest idea what
>survival is all about  (you mean I have to *walk* to the supermarket?).
>It was in the 1890's when Queen Victoria issued an edict that forced all
>the english to 'bathe at least once a year'.
>Sit back and enjoy the carnival.

	What was tbe average life expectancy in Victorian England?

	Those "other half" (more like other .05%) who live in refridgerator
cartons regularly clog up ER's with gangrenous wounds, stinking of filth
and decay. They tend not to live too long like that. Many of them also get
a hot shower at least once a week from a homeless shelter.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com