A Single Change

If you could make a change, a single change to society that could illuminate its most pressing issues, bring them to the forefront and propose new solutions to many of society’s oldest problems, you would do it, wouldn’t you? If this change could help many, even if none of the people helped were you, yet no one could be harmed, you would quite probably wish for this change to occur, would you not? Perhaps even take action to help enact it? Vote on it? Sign a petition?

I want to propose such a change. One change, that in itself would address many of the ills of societies world wide. It wouldn’t even be a drastic one. It would require a few people to take just slightly more responsibility for themselves and the rest of us in the process. Allow me to explain.

There are a few wealthy people who, through their actions pollute the environment, although this isn’t agreed upon. The current trend of oil-fracking for instance is claimed to be safe by the companies doing it and the legislators who allow it, but toxic by those exposed to its effects. This dichotomy seems to exist only because of a difference in circumstance. Why don’t we remove this?

Simply put, there is no point in anyone removed from the effects of an activity claiming anything, when there is no need for them to be removed from it. If the corporate leaders and politicians think, believe or merely state that the products and/or results of any corporate product are safe, then why don’t they and their families partake of it? Why don’t we simply make this a legal obligation on their part? This one change will resolve any conflict.

Think of it. We wouldn’t have to create any dispute. The corporations and politicians don’t deny that there are effects from oil-fracking. They simply state that the effects aren’t harmful. If that is the case, then making it a legal requirement for them to ingest their safe products at the same level that residents living in areas it occurs are forced to could cause absolutely no harm whatsoever. The general public would simply sign a petition stating that anyone introducing a pollutant into the environment and their families claiming its safety would therefore have to ingest, consume, breathe in the said “safe” contaminant in the same amounts as those unwillingly exposed to it and their families. Once the public was behind the movement, this would end any debate as to safety concerns, reduce conflict over issues and cost tax-payers far less than the clean-up that will be required decades from now when the corporate perpetrators no longer exist. It could even help the economy. Why, when the corporate leaders, politicians and their families suffer no ill effects from the consumption of these safe products, the discussion for the need to spend millions of dollars in cleaning up their products will disappear. It’s a win-win situation!

These people also could offer absolutely no objection to consuming these products as they are the very ones claiming their safety. Even if they could, the politicians would have some trouble admitting as to why they would if this new law were to be passed at the demand of their constituents in a democracy. This project cannot possibly fail!

In summary, this one change could save taxpayers millions, reduce or end conflict, save more money on needless studies of safe products and end the debate so that we can spend more time worrying about more pressing issues such as what hairstyles are currently “in” and which stars are in drug rehab. So let’s start this petition!

Michael Freed is interested in the issues and applying rationality to them. Read other articles by Michael, or visit Michael's website.