Today We Talk Philosophy and Fracking

By Ryan McGuire

Casey Research put out a myth busing article this past Wednesday, where they used a movie made by Matt Daemon, and the assumption that people would take the events of the movie at face value, as the backdrop for a discussion on whether fracking is harmful to people or not. I took issue with the article, but I hope that in these musings I will respond kindly and amicably.

You can read the article here: http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/matt-damon-broken-promises

My main problem is not that I think their research is bad. I feel their research is actually quite good, and honest. This is something of which the world needs more. I take issue because I think they have inadvertently set up and equal but opposite problem to the one they ultimately are addressing: that people tend to take things at face value.

I want to use myth #1 as an example of the problem: Myth #1 - Frac fluid gets into drinking water.

The article points out the proven fact that fracking fluid is not getting into drinking water. For whatever reason, it seems that someone made it up or overreacted. However, something is getting into drinking water and it's directly related to fracking. I have several close friends up in Northern BC who have a gas well close to their homes. They all say the same thing: Before the gas well came, their well water was pristine, but now it smells awful to the point where they can't even shower without getting nauseous. They certainly won't drink the stuff. I'm  not sure what it means that everyone with a gas well close by is not experiencing the same problem, but I know that there are a few towns close to where I live that have gas wells; I would rather eat snow from the side of the road than drink the water that comes out of the taps there. Perhaps it's a cosmetic (smell) issue, or perhaps there is something actually harmful being released into the water. I don't personally know, and in fact it doesn't matter for the purpose of this post.

The conclusions of the Dispatch presuppose that since they have now busted the myths, investors can consider fracking to be not only safe in terms of health to the people close by, but that it is thus a morally sound investment. This wasn't mentioned directly in the dispatch, but this is an inevitable conclusion should one be thoroughly persuaded by the articles facts given the framing story of the wider argument. Realize that the article is really trying to dismantle a framing story they believe is false. Namely, the story or narrative being refuted is that fracking is harmful to people.

The problem is that the definition of "not harmful" is too narrow, and only itself deals with the surface of things, namely, physical harm. The definition of 'not harmful' being used by both sides does not take into account various ways that the existence of fracking could introduce economic, relational, or even cultural harm over time. The truth is that we may not know for many more years whether fracking is harmful to people or the environment at large. It often takes decades for problems to compound long enough to start showing up in ways we can diagnose, much like it takes decades for moderate amounts of interest to compound into big returns.

Both sides of the argument over fracking seem to think that by busting up arguments made for or against fracking, they are totally validating or invalidating the technology. Fracking's nature is much more complicated than that. As I said, the whole argument over fracking is just dealing with the surface, or what is most obvious. If the base framing story being addressed is only a matter of the surface, no wonder people only see the surface. What about the way fracking re-shapes culture, society, economics? It definitely does does re-shape these things ... do we know how or even understand the consequences. I bet not.

So my warning is this: history shows that as we accept technology blindly, we get blindsided with unexpected problems. Thus, I expect that the real, provable, 'problem' of fracking will be almost entirely unexpected, and may take years to show up. It may not even have to do directly with fracking, but with the way that fracking re-organizes society.

To wrap-up, just because some myths were busted doesn't mean that fracking is never harmful. And if you read some article that counters those arguments, it doesn't mean that fracking is totally harmful. There are a million factors that make fracking both harmful and safe - and many of those factors have to do with the human component that surrounds everything related to fracking.

Perhaps there are bigger issues at hand; like the world's over-reliance on carbon-based fuel, or the bigger story of the world's over-extension of fiat currency systems, the world's addiction to economic expansion, or the even bigger story of the world's blind embrace of new mediums/technology without thorough consideration nor understanding about the nature of long-term consequences and compounding problems.

Incidentally, I see the very same problem among many Christians: One person argues that another person is a 'heretic' based on x thing that they said, while the other person argues that their aggressors are religious bigots because of y thing that they said. But the whole thing where people call each other out in public over things they say quite destructively misses the point. In arguing about who is right and who is wrong, or who is in and who is out, there are real people on the sidelines being hurt badly by the insults being hurtled. How, in any way, does that show people Jesus? Hopefully this is a question that can bring some sanity to the current insanity that is public discourse.