| The Unwritten Agreement That Poisons Us By Jim Correale (Published in the East Boston Sun Transcript on August 17, 2001.) One day recently I flipped between channels 4, 5 and 7 at six o'clock, just as their primary evening newscasts were beginning. The stations led their broadcasts with three different stories, but the reports were tied together with an ominous thread. One station had a story on unhealthy water, another on unhealthy air, and the third on unhealthy food. Every day it seems that we are cautioned about something else that is not good for us, and our typical response is to wave a hand in the air and say, "Today everything is unhealthy." Part of the equation is that, as science and technology advance, we are able to look at the world more closely and to better understand it. Relationships between elements that we would never have thought of in the same context have become clear. At one time lead was used to seal canned goods; now we know it can cause brain damage. Research has determined that the lakes and woodlands of New England are adversely affected by the emissions from smokestacks hundreds of miles away in the Midwest. We are able to understand such connections better now. However, there is another factor in this whole mix. In the English classes I've taught, high school seniors read a poem in the textbook that presents some ideas to the reader: suppose that someone offered you a television, "but your baby will be born with a crooked spine"; suppose you can have plastic cups and "wash and wear suits but it will cost you your left lung rotted with cancer"; or suppose you can have a ten-year supply of frozen dinners, "but at the end your colon dies and then you do." The students immediately answer that they would not take any of the propositions that are put forward by Marge Piercy in her poem "The Market Economy." They are quite adamant that no one would. Only after discussing for a while the ideas that the poem raises do some of the students begin to understand what the writer is getting at. We've already consented to those tradeoffs. All of us. Of course, they are never presented to us quite so starkly -- and truthfully. Corporations never come out and say, "We've developed a new technology that is going to make your life easier, but we had to pollute the air something awful in the process," or "We have this great product for you, but to make it we have to dump chemical waste in your drinking water." They never put it that way, but that's the deal. And we've accepted it. The economy, we are told, must be forever moving forward. Production must rise and sales must grow, perpetually increasing profits. Whenever statistics are released by a company, a trade organization or a government agency that say that growth is "flat," such information is cause for great concern. Let's not even discuss the ramifications of growth slowing down. But do we really need to increase the number of widgets manufactured every day, every quarter and every year? And if the development, production, transportation, marketing and sales of new and improved widgets leads to the ruination of the planet, shouldn't we slow down and make do with the widgets that we already have? Businesses will pollute as long as it is profitable to do so. More and more stories about contaminated air, water, land and food will make the news. And we will continue to give our tacit approval to the unwritten agreement that is poisoning the planet, and each one of us. |