I’ve lived in New York city since well before 2000. When the Y2K bug threatened to disrupt life at every level, people were understandably alarmed.

Just over nine months after Y2K concerns turned out to be harmless, our way of life as it had been, in the U.S. and elsewhere, changed drastically in just one day. From that point forward, we have endured a new uncertainty about our safety and the perception of a looming threat. It seems to me that what we feared from Y2K actually came true in some ways after September 11th.

How have your perceptions of life changed or stayed the same in the past four years?

You can count on the hysteria picking up again, to a lesser degree. Because of design oversights and limitations, several Palm OS PDAs will be unable to input new calendar/appointment entries after Deceber 31, 2031. Linux faces a similar issue after 2037. Given the perchant for sensationalism, these minor glitches will gain ground among the overhyped non-events of their decade.

I wonder how we'll feel in the months and years after 9/11 concerns turn out to have been harmless? There are a few more columns on actuarial tables, and the administration has a blanket excuse for consolidating executive power, but I fear our perception of threat is just a perception.

Companies preyed on our fears surrounding Y2K. The US government acts on our perceived uncertainties about our safety. In both cases the threat was addressed and contained. With distance, we may eventually see them both similarly.

I think history will see 9/11 as an excuse for actions peripheral or unrelated to the containment of terrorism. If there is any lasting effect (at least on Americans) it won't be the terrorists who have won; it will be the demagogues.

I hope you're right, Hugh.

But, the idea that 9/11 may be the only terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the next decade or so seems less likely following the events of July 7 and July 21 in London.

^ Referring just then to a perceived threat of attacks by terrorists who are Muslim extremists or sympathizers, not to other forms of terrorism, like Oklahoma City.

I guess there aren't many Metachat users who have formed strong opinions on this topic, based on the low number of comments.

Maybe it's more interesting to discuss improbable inventions.


Anyway, thanks Hugh and Smart Dalek for your insight.

*moves on to myriad threads of little consequence*

I don't mean the 9/11 attacks will be the only ones. There may be further ones, as statistically significant as the first.

My likelihood of dying every time I enter a tall building (even a tall building specifically mentioned as a credible target) is not much higher than it was before 9/11. But my perception of the danger I'm in may be inflated (particularly by my workplace's specific mention).

Even if there are ten attacks in the next decade, I won't be in much more danger. And certainly as a well-massaged public perception of danger mounts and the government makes terrorism harder, my personal danger quotient will drop off the map, along with my civil liberties.

I always assume that I am more likely to die and or be inconvenienced, even though only one of those is statisticly likely, which isn't so comforting anyway because it's that bullshit kind of statistics that doesn't account for the fact that all bets are off once the plane or subway car I am on blows up.


I am starting to feel (in a poetic, socio-fantasy way) that America collectively willed 9-11 to allow us a place in a century where we were going to be increasingly irrelevant as a political, economic and cultural force. Well, that is also bullshit, but I do see and hear people being so happy to be victims and to be affronted.


When I am not in New York City the feeling of looming threat, diminishes quite a bit for me. I don't feel it when I'm in New Orleans or out in the country somewhere. For me that is totally because all of feeling about vague and looming threats to me well being are tied up in my New Yorkers 9-11 trauma. I think that if I was in a terror attack somewhere else I wouldn't even blink.

The nameless threat is also pretty easy to repress and forget about, but it does lurk, like malaria or something.

I thought y2k was probably going to be awesome, but then again I like army-navy supplies, guns and drinking out of stagnant puddles and so on. I was pretty sure nothing was going to happen because people were so worried about it, that's my usual barometer.

What changed for me in Y2K...
Well, after working my tail off for the better part of 1998 on ensuring our system was y2k compliant, I discovered that everybody believed it was all nonsense and programmers like me were using it as an excuse to make money. Bastards. I work like a fucking monkey so a bunch of people and companies wouldn't be messed up and they said I was making it up.

I guess what i learnt was that nobody ever got called a hero for preserving the Status Quo.

I know what you mean about feeling more at ease outside NYC, Divine_Wino.

During rush hour last night, my subway line was re-routed to skip a major stop. I don't think I was the only one on the train wondering if something ominous had happened. That's why I wanted to ask people here for their opinion/experience on this matter.

Seanyboy
I think it's just that like the "war on terror", there is certainly a need for security and there was a need to make sure that a ton of code was compliant, but there was also a lot of fear mongering and profiteering, not by coders and not by cops, but by consultant companies and homeland security dons and private sector companies. There was some tv newsmagazine deal where they show a homeland security conference in Hawaii where a bunch of beefy wardheeler types and Ayn Rand flag lapel pin money addicts stand around sucking down surf and turf and rum and cokes and jerk each other off about their ultrasonic guard robot that is going to make sure that Osama didn't take out the worlds biggest ball of string in Moscow, Idaho or whereever the fuck. I can pretty easily picture the same dudes standing around in 1998 gloating about how to convince the feds that they need 8 millon dollars to make sure that all the microwaves at Camp David were y2k compliant.

Where the two problems deviate: Y2k was solvable, a big but finite problem with real world solutions. The War on Terror is just the red menace with better special effects and a less corny script.

You've got a greater chance of being savaged by your own pet than of being harmed by terrorists. People overestimate the liklihood of rare events and underestimate the familiar.

Which leads to arbitrage opportunities at the race track and disasters like the Longterm Capital meltdown of 1998. Humans are silly like that.

That's what I mean though, warbaby. The knowledge that I am way more likely to catch a bad one from a fucked up oyster than from a terrorist attack doesn't stop the cringies one bit. The human brain has such a lousy real world interface.

I don't believe you can downplay the risk by claiming that, statistically, a resident of NYC or perhaps DC is very unlikely to be at risk (or that other risks should be given more consideration).

US officials take very seriously the possibility of a near-term large-scale attack, biological, chemical or dirty-bomb.

On Sept. 10, 2001, what were the odds that a major terrorist attack would occur in NYC within a week? 100%. And yet, nobody would have believed it until that morning.

That said, it is uncomfortable at times to deal with the uncertainty.

I don't want to sound like chicken little, above. It is my hope that many barriers to this sort of event exist, including rigorous investigative work by homeland security and law enforcement. If we have been and continue to be diligent then, indeed, there may be nothing at all to worry about.

The serious-thinking government can and does overplay the risk of terrorist attack. Hell, they even tell us of the possibility of a near-term, large-scale attack. But now that the police and investigative services' eyes are open and public employees are no longer ignoring memos, Americans are at less risk.

The odds of a terrorist attack occurring in NYC within a week of September 10, 2001 were negligible. An attack occurred, but that didn't change the odds. People win the lottery, but the odds of people winning the lottery stay the same.

Comparing disparate risks is important and useful. US officials, and the private sector as well, do it all the time.

I deal with the uncertainty of a terrorist attack the same way I deal with the uncertainty of dying in the night. I go to sleep, and see what tomorrow will bring.

"Negligible" odds of an attack occuring soon after Sept 10, 2001 in NYC didn't protect thousands of people from dying or suffering injury. So, I believe an attempt to estimate the odds isn't useful, since we can't really predict what will happen without perfect information. But there's no need to argue semantics.

Taking into consideration the odds of unrelated events like being hit by a bus or choking etc is a red herring and isn't really relevant to the topic of this post. I posted to ask people what their reaction to the life-changing events of 9/11 were, and how their view of the world has changed since. Impossible-to-predict statistical chances of death by terrorism or concerns about how one may be harmed by other events doesn't have much to do with this subject.

...well, the odds of death by terrorism may be relevant to the topic of this post, but nobody can say with any accuracy what those odds are.

My reaction to the life-changing events of 9/11 is above, but sadly, it doesn't have much to do with this subject.

My changed view of the world is above as well, but isn't relevant to the post.

Sorry to derail your post with semantics and red herrings. I'll come back when I can give you what you want.

I never understood why people cared all that much about 9/11. About 4000 people died in a terrorist attack and that's a tragedy. To me that doesn't seem like it should be an event significant enough to turn our foreign policy, orientation to civil liberties, or sense of personal safety around. I convinced that the event would not have had the impact it did if had not been televised.

It doesn't seem as if people can tell the difference between what happens on television and what is happening to them.

I hope you have returned to this thread, Hugh.

With certainty you cannot posess, you discredit any concern of a future attack:

I wonder how we'll feel in the months and years after 9/11 concerns turn out to have been harmless?

How could you know if these assertions are true?:

The serious-thinking government can and does overplay the risk of terrorist attack.

...Americans are at less risk.

While disputing my opinion, you assert that unrelated risks are important, which isn't relevant to this post, but is simply argumentative.:

Comparing disparate risks is important and useful. US officials, and the private sector as well, do it all the time.

Much of your comments have been topic-relevant. And yet, you state as fact things which you couldn't know. And you appear to use those statements to refute or discredit what I posted as my opinions. I see some of your remarks as being off-topic and others as being untrue or beyond the scope of anyone's knowledge, unless you are God.

Didn't mean to offend you, Hugh, but some of these statements such as "Comparing disparate risks is important and useful. US officials, and the private sector as well, do it all the time." sound like terse dismissals of what I had posed as my opinion, not as fact.

You asked how I feel. This is how I feel:

I wonder how we'll feel in the months and years after 9/11 concerns turn out to have been harmless? There are a few more columns on actuarial tables, and the administration has a blanket excuse for consolidating executive power, but I fear our perception of threat is just a perception.

You ask if I know how I know my assertions are true:

WRT the government overplaying threats: I keep up on current events. I notice when our government tells us of imminent threats, and I also notice when they downplay concern after nothing happens.

WRT Americans are at less risk: Read the whole sentence. Given that our investigators are on the prowl, and that the world is more aware than ever of these threats, I'd still say that.

You tell me my mention of disparate risks is irrelevant and argumentative:

The US government has so many people comparing disparate risks, it boggles the mind. There are loads of career bureaucrats gaming out strategies, using actuarial tables to figure casualty counts, comparing deaths by cancer to deaths by bombing to deaths by taxes. Industries (insurance, banking, military industry, &c.) are built on this sort of discretion.

I was never here to argue. We obviously disagree in our reaction and approach to the post-9/11 world. I'm not interested in convincing you. I am, however, convinced that we have a start-to-finish disagreement on the nature and use of statistics, and the linkage of the word "risk" with those very numbers.

Finally, I never meant anything I wrote as a personal attack. I understand, though, that they triggered a personal defense, and any dismaissals contained therein were either accidents or the product of misunderstanding.

Sorry again, and thanks.

*moves on to myriad threads of little consequence*

Sorry, do you mean as opposed to this one?

My perceptions of life are the same now as they always were. The events that are claimed to have changed the world seem to have had a far greater effect on Americans than on anyone else in the world, perhaps because it is the first time they have come under attack on their own soil. This is something that most countries have lived with for centuries, so the concept that attacks "at home" can happen is somehow ingrained in the psyche of the people of most countries.

That doesn't make the attacks on September 11 any better or worse, but is my way of explaining why America seems to be more hysterical about the whole thing than everyone else. Even countries that have supported the "War on Terror" do it as a necessary evil thing rather than seeing it as some mighty crusade against evil. It seems to me that George Bush is the only person in the world who really believes that terrorists can be defeated.

I guess there aren't many Metachat users who have formed strong opinions on this topic, based on the low number of comments.
Because, of course, everyone in the world lives in your time zone.

*winks at PinkStainlessTail, nods to dg*