23 April 2008

Consumers or customers

This is a topic you'll be hearing/seeing a lot of in the coming times. Due to the nature of plastic we are learning that it is having a degrading effect in our oceans and environment not to mention our bodies. I would suggest getting a little background on this before moving forward. See here and here.

Now if you've read the previous links then you'll see I've included both sides of the argument. One set of tests/statements are from the health organizations and the other is from the plastic industry. Now the reason why neither side can say for sure is because of a word I'm hearing more and more in the world of scientific studies and that word is 'correlation'. That's a tricky one like saying that smoking leads to cancer and then you see someone smoke 100 cartons a day and live to be a hundred. Further studies are being done which are showing that certain plastic additives that migrate out of the plastics we use into our food and beverages contain chemicals our bodies interpret as hormones (e.g., xenoestrogen). Depending on your chemical make up this may or may not effect you severely. Tests done on rats (which share a 9x% DNA match to our own) show major degradations by each passing generation. Tests being done with humans are showing the same correlation. Who would have thought back in the 50s that the use and mass producing of such a unique and creative chemical would show up years later as a possible roadblock to fertility?

It's hard to believe that people purposely throw harmful products out into the market without regard for human life. What's more appropriate is man's (human's) blindness when power and dominance come into play.

I can honestly say that I see both sides of the argument but here is where I think capitalism starts to take a twisted turn. If you are putting a product out into the marketplace which winds up in offices and homes then it should be your responsibility to test that product for any harmful effects. This is tough because sometimes the technology or resources are not available for a company to spend years finding out if this has any sort of harmful effect or not. Not to mention that if a company has been making a product for 10 years and it takes 15 years for any signs of harmful effects to show it's tough to blame anyone! This is where the consumer has to step up and play their part. We need to redefine the original concept of checks and balances. This system cannot operate if all accounting parties do not participate.

We live in a world that is very much a make it now, sell it now, take the money type of economical environment. Although this philosophy has made plenty of people rich, we're noticing some very serious consequences because of this. Not just in the global economy but also in the formidable health risks and societal implications as well.

I'm starting to piece together a book I'm writing where I'll discuss this in more detail. The point here is again to take the purchasing power we have and do the research necessary before we engage in buying certain products. This isn't easy as most people don't wish to be bothered by such tedious research. Lackadaisical effort will do nothing more than increase your chances for unnecessary suffering. This is where the survival of the fittest comes into play. It is necessary to ensure the survival of our species by maintaining a constant updating of our awareness and knowledge to keep ourselves from an otherwise pointless death.

Getting reconnected with nature means getting reconnected with ourselves because we are nature. We are nurture. We are the very thing that we see in the world, the oceans, the clouds, the land, all of it. To think we are somehow separate is where we disconnect ourselves from our truth. Money is not life we just value it as such. Earlier civilizations worked as a trades and services community where you were valued strictly based of your contribution to society. There are elements in this (IMHO) that need to be brought back.

No comments: