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.

Inside-out and Upside-down

Sometimes governments treat desperate people with total disregard and are not held accountable. And sometimes fraudulent companies take good people for all they're worth, and are not stopped. Other times, governments are held accountable (usually in the form of a violent revolution), and many frauds do eventually have their crimes exposed in the daylight.

Some multinational corporations (I'll pick on Walmart because they're easy) don't have a people, people, people mantra, and are willing to blur the lines of social justice issues in order to feed their bottom line and pad their wallets. We have three grocery stores in my town, and one stands out above the rest. While they are a more expensive store, they are the kind of company that I resonate with because they treat people with value and dignity. They hire special needs individuals, give competitive wages, and can give a majority of their employees a decent living wage (this includes clerks and stock-jobs). For people who can't afford the store's prices though, there are no real options to support a quality grocery store in town. Many people are forced to shop at Walmart to save the bucks, or simply go without. This is more than some 'upper story' lifestyle choice: We, as investors and consumers, need to make conscious choices to support companies that demonstrate a kind of measured self-sacrifice that gives people most would consider 'the least of these' real options. Because in giving people options, it also gives us options. In giving ourselves away, we actually gain our true selves back.

I don't believe there are, nor am I advocating for, black and white answers to any world problem, including issues of social justice. And when it comes to government, a group of corporations could become just as corrupt as a government if given enough power and control. Power and control is, perhaps, part of the problem. With this, is the problem that money = power. From the Babylonians, to the Romans, to the Kingdoms of Europe, to the Empire state(s); human beings simply don't know how to wield power properly and justly. If someone claims to be able to, it raises suspicion. One look at nearly any popular American Televangelist makes this abundantly clear.

The looming question is "how much is enough?" 1 million? 10 million? 1 billion? 2 billion? 1 trillion? Equivalent ounces of gold or silver? We need nothing short of an inside-out transformation. Left to our own devices, the theory of our minds create realities filled with malice, greed, hate and violence.

I'm sorry: a blog isn't so conductive to go in-depth, but the crux (I think) is that both the liberal and conservative political approaches to running a country are hopelessly broken. Throwing money at everything will lead to too much debt, but cutting too much of everything will lead to a growing gap between the rich and poor. As the poor blame the rich for their problems and the rich blame the poor likewise, the hope of reconciling people to one another becomes much more arduous. Only as a people reconciled to one another can we truly progress, but if we are only reconciling ourselves to the people we already love, we are really just going to perpetuate (to some extent) the same cycles of the us/them dichotomy that seems to dominate American politics and lifestyle.