tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post5291989313152971790..comments2024-01-30T20:01:01.316+00:00Comments on Science Fiction & Fantasy: The end of civilisation?Anthony G Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798830903236765181noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-5217222148687412012008-04-18T07:53:00.000+01:002008-04-18T07:53:00.000+01:00:-DThat reminds me of what I presume was an urban ...:-D<BR/><BR/>That reminds me of what I presume was an urban legend doing the rounds concerning that Manchester bomb. The story goes that an electrician was working in the basement of a building close to the centre of the blast, and had just connected two power cables together - and turned on the power at the same instant that the bomb exploded. He was convinced that he was responsible and went into hiding for three days!Anthony G Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798830903236765181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-32860201542958950562008-04-18T04:13:00.000+01:002008-04-18T04:13:00.000+01:00Yeah, that makes sense. There's plenty of small-sc...Yeah, that makes sense. There's plenty of small-scale disaster planning that goes on. I used to work for an electric utility, and there's careful 'blackstart' (recovery from a complete blackout*) planning and regular drills. Critical loads (hospitals, police stations, etc.) are kept clearly identified, because those must be brought online first. But there'd be no problem with deciding where scarce power should go, if things came to that. Unfortunately, I have no faith at all in any higher level disaster planning that's being done (if any).<BR/><BR/>*Incidentally, I'm the only person who's ever blacked out our entire city. Luckily, we were able to restore partial power in just a few minutes, and almost no one in the city realized that everyone had gone black at the same time.Bill Garthrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08552459555883204060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-73514401377538516482008-04-18T02:43:00.000+01:002008-04-18T02:43:00.000+01:00I agree, it isn't possible to eliminate all risks....I agree, it isn't possible to eliminate all risks. <BR/><BR/>The disaster planning "mantra" went something like this IIRC:<BR/><BR/>PREVENT the threat from happening;<BR/><BR/>Take PRECAUTIONARY measures to limit the damage if it does happen;<BR/><BR/>Put in place PROCEDURES to guide your actions if it happens;<BR/><BR/>Have a recovery PLAN to get back on your feet afterwards.<BR/><BR/>It is actually quite a powerful tool, and commonly used by businesses these days. Over a decade ago, an IRA bomb inflicted severe damage on the central business district of Manchester, which was closed off by the police for weeks. An insurance company was based right in that zone - but they were back in business within 24 hours. How? They kept all their data backed-up off-site, and had subscribed to a backup service which maintained an empty office building stuffed with computers, so they just moved their staff in and got going.<BR/><BR/>I think that we need something like such a disaster plan, on a grand scale, although the precautionary measures may involve lots of work on a small scale (e.g. local generation of electricity via solar power, wind, geothermal etc). The upside is that some of this may actually make financial sense anyway.<BR/><BR/>It would be best of all to prevent that crisis from happening, of course, but we can't count on that (and the crisis which DOES happen is not usually quite the one you've prepared for), so reasonable precautionary measures are sensible. I note that the USAF has decide to sponsor the production of fuel from coal, to insulate itself against reliance on uncertain international supplies. Similarly, large buildings in the earthquake zone of California are built to be resistant to earthquakes. That's the kind of thinking that needs to be applied to this problem, in my opinion.Anthony G Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798830903236765181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-28205994099660975342008-04-17T14:37:00.000+01:002008-04-17T14:37:00.000+01:00And considering that our resources are limited, do...And considering that our resources are limited, do we go for that 'sensible degree of resilience,' or concentrate on preventing or minimizing the disruption in the first place? SOME amount of disaster planning is prudent, but its highly unlikely to be enough, given a pandemic or other worldwide disaster. We may just have to live with the risk.Bill Garthrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08552459555883204060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-69804200318365032902008-04-16T06:50:00.000+01:002008-04-16T06:50:00.000+01:00I think we could cope with such a crisis, Bill, gi...I think we could cope with such a crisis, Bill, given adequate pre-planning (including a series of stand-ins for individuals in critical jobs). I used to get involved in disaster planning, on a small scale, and the important thing is to think it through: brainstorm all of the things which could go wrong, and put in place countermeasures. Studying actual disasters to see what went wrong is also invaluable. Then practice your emergency procedures.<BR/><BR/>A small example: one place I know had a standby electricity generator. The power went down for an extended period, but the genny didn't kick in as it should. When somebody went to look at it, he found that the fuel had all evaporated long ago - because it hadn't been in anyone's job description to keep the tank topped up.<BR/><BR/>The problem with putting in procedures to cope with massive international and regional disruption is that these will involve greater distribution of production, and greater stockpiling of necessities - and these aren't cheap. So do we go for profit or do we go for a sensible degree of resilience? Knowing our politicians, I am not optimistic...Anthony G Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798830903236765181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6331135384154117296.post-22413324964707262312008-04-15T14:11:00.000+01:002008-04-15T14:11:00.000+01:00Cheerful, huh? OK, I'm increasingly pessimistic ab...Cheerful, huh? OK, I'm increasingly pessimistic about our chances, but that's not what I want to read in science fiction. So how could we plausibly avoid this - WITHOUT alien or supernatural help, a sudden attack of sanity among humans everywhere, or magical technology?<BR/><BR/>Well, the pandemic may not be a problem in itself, if it's identified quickly enough - and if it's deadly enough that strict quarantines are put into effect. But as you point out, the travel ban would kill us. Still, with increasingly expensive fuel, we might be tending towards more distributed electrical generation - home solar panels, small wind turbines, etc. - which could keep the power flowing, to some minimal extent.<BR/><BR/>That still leaves food, but I've got enough petrified... stuff in the refrigerator to last me awhile, if the power stays on. And some ancient food in the kitchen cupboards ("why in the world did I buy THAT?"). Besides, it takes awhile to starve to death (though the weakness would leave us even more vulnerable to disease).<BR/><BR/>Hmm, so far, still no science fiction. Well, nanotechnology has real promise (often the subject of optimistic hard SF). And with networked computers - and the Internet - some people can stay home and do their work (not many, admittedly). I just don't know.<BR/><BR/>OK, the pandemic strikes, but quarantines are fairly effective - so that some scattered areas remain free of disease while others are almost completely wiped out. In the healthy areas, civilization continues until a cure is found, and the survivors emerge to find a world with considerably fewer population pressures, but still enough to keep a functioning high tech society. Yeah, real 'optimistic,' huh?<BR/><BR/>Oh, well. This is only ONE of the reasons I don't write SF.Bill Garthrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08552459555883204060noreply@blogger.com