Fracking Beliefs.

I like to take an oblique look at things. I’ve just scanned a list of 1,500 incidents of ill health near fracking sites in Pennsylvania alone. From dogs, fish and livestock deaths to various serious ailments in humans similar themes immerged across the state: Sterile cattle and high levels of toxic substances in people’s blood and inflamed ovaries. In affected areas property prices plummeted and house owners were refused insurance. Consumers across the US have begun to boycott meat, dairy products and other produce from fracking-affected areas. The whole thing seems a calamity of biblical proportions. But hold on, these people are all just scare mongering. They hear stuff on the news and flip. Cattle are always dieing and going infertile, people are always suffering from some ailment or another, they’re just blaming it all on fracking because it’s in the news. They’re probably angling to get some compensation; you know what people are like. OK 1,500 is a big number but there’s 12 million people in Pennsylvania and we’re all getting lower energy prices and that helps the economy. And all those protester, they just get so angry and emotional, they make themselves look stupid and even fight the police who’re there to protect us. They just want to disrupt the country and all we stand for. All of this only really proves human consciousness can construct any belief we choose to. In the UK Osborne, Cameron and Quadrilla execs construct the latter and the people of Sussex the former. The more fundamental question is, ‘why do we choose the beliefs we construct?’ At this deeper level the ‘facts’ we choose to substantiate the belief appear highly coloured by some deeper motivation. We turn a blind eye to some and cling onto others as if our life depends on them. This level, below conscious bias, is the motivation we need to be conscious of and concerned with. Cameron and Quadrilla are concerned with the fear of their future, the loss of power and profit, and the people of Sussex are concerned with the fear of their future, their health, their children and property. The commonality of fear is obvious but never directly expressed or engaged with. This lack of engagement throws both sides back into the hands of their chosen beliefs and they remain adversaries motivated by the exact same fear. To engage with, feel and express this deeper commonality would have enormous positive repercussions. Osborne, Cameron and Quadrilla have fearsome conflicting and confusing responsibilities to a myriad of parties that, if they expressed honestly would be met with sympathetic understanding, as would the people of Sussex. But so long as the expression of fear is seen as weakness and bluster is seen as strength division will remain and wrong decisions will be made on bias, bluster and bloody mindedness.