Just because a thing can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. This is an attitude and concept that seems to be sorely missing in culture and society today. In an age of parents disengaged from their children, either willfully or circumstantially, we have enabled a generation who feel entitled to everything and act without any consideration of consequence. Whether its online activity ranging from the asinine to the criminal, pregnant teenagers who are made rich exploiting themselves on TV, or the Matrix like mind altering reality where Snookie is a New York Times best selling author, children see no reason to stop, think, and consider the consequences of their decisions and their actions. What has become of personal responsibility and responsibility to your community?
Is this the legacy of TV westerns and those raised on them: rush into action, shoot first, and ask questions later because no one will really get hurt? Look at the media that reports assumptions as fact, then tries and convicts in 15-second teasers. Our politicians and sports and entertainment stars seem to be on a never-ending circuit of apologizing to the public for “ being selfish” and “not thinking first”. Kurt Vonnegut joked that all products should come with a universal warning: “THINK BEFORE USING” because it was clear that we were becoming a society in a constant state of re-action, usually to messes of our own creation, and that caution had become the enemy of progress.
Technology is always a big area for this type of anxiety. From the atomic bomb, to the human genome, to stem cells, one central question must precede all others: Should we do it just because we can? Some say that ethical arguments have no place in science as they are inherently biased, but contrary to accepted belief, science does not exist without a bias of its own. All human endeavor has been conducted with at least some feeling that the result will either be “good” or save us from “harm”.
Cell towers may not be as attention grabbing as cloning, but they have been a serious cause of concern and anxiety from their inception. They don’t bother me so much, but I know they bother most, and I can sympathize. I would never want to live next to one of those huge generator stations. What got my back up about the Edgar Rd tower issue was not that I was against towers, but that I was appalled by the treatment of the surrounding residents. No one should defend their property and their peace of mind from their own government. Our government is supposed to be an instrument of the people that does for us as a community what we cannot do for ourselves as individuals, not decide when we’re equal and when we’re not.
A new tower has just been approved in another neighborhood. The same fears and arguments were heard, but there was no technicality in this instance to put the brakes on. I don’t know if this was the right or wrong thing, but I feel as I did with Edgar Rd that in the face of direct objection, even if they are a minority of the community they are the majority of this neighborhood, compromise must be sought. These “Not In My Backyard” conflicts are messy at best but I can’t believe the best outcome should leave some feeling less equal than others. That being said, I wonder how many of us would have electricity and telephones if they tried to put up all those poles and lines today?
I applaud Mike Permuko for voting with his conscience and his conviction, that the surrounding residents’ concerns should be at least equal to the monetary benefit of the town. We will all see fractions of a penny’s worth of tax relief paid for by the Burnt Tavern residents who will see their home value negatively affected. I guess one person’s gain is always at another’s expense. You can argue all day that the technology is safe, but the public perception of safety, regardless of “fact”, is what dictates the market.
I don’t mean to say the other Planning Board members acted dishonestly. I think Mr. Giordano was clear and correct when he said he acted as the law allows, but this does bring me back to my point: We don’t have to approve something just because the law allows it. An allowance in the law does not bind us to action. We are a community that has direct influence on our composition. We must all act, whether as public servants or as private citizens, for our common good, a common ideal that holds us all equal. I know absolute execution of this is nearly impossible but there is a second part to my belief: Just because something seems impossible doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to achieve it.
This has been a recurring notion since stumbling into public life and the most important thing I feel I can do in my time is to find folks that feel the same and support them. That’s why I’m glad to call Mike my friend. I know that whether or not I agree with him that I can be sure of his honesty and his integrity, I trust him. There are too many people out there acting in “our interest” that have to be studied and dissected and whose motivations will always be in doubt. When Mike shares an opinion I don’t second guess him the way the Burnt Tavern residents will forever second guess the safety of the tower out their windows. At least they will no longer need to second-guess the government that has certainly let them down.
Please let cell towers be a short-lived transitional technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment