Many of you remember I completed my Climate Ride (320 miles from NYC to DC in 5 days by bike) about 6 months ago. I was remembering some of the opposition to my fundraising efforts- one guy actually said "I wish you were riding for something important, like cancer research".
Of course this beyond frustrated me- I'll ride for what I support. And you ride for what you want to. Well that was my first reaction. Then, I crafted a message that described the reasons our causes were not so different. Since most cancers are results of environmental conditions, i.e. exposure to air, water, and land pollutions- we ARE in fact, on the same side. However, in raising money for a cure- you are not acknowledging the need for change at the source.
The United States National Cancer Institute (NCI) has an annual budget of about 4.8 billion dollars. Imagine if even 25% of that went to environmental protection (and therefore, prevention). We are looking for a cure to a disease we as a species are giving ourselves.
When you fall on the sidewalk and scrape your arm- your brain sends nerve impulses to your arm to tell you it's hurt and it needs attention. Isn't it possible that the rise and growing variations of cancers are our bodies telling us they're hurt. The things we put into and on our bodies (whether intentionally or not) are hurting us. And our DNA is screaming for change.
But in my friendly debates and discussions, we all agree humans can't be counted on to give up their standard of living for something different, even if it better for the whole. So , it will require top down measures. After awhile, the change will become 'the way things are'- and it won't seem so terrible anymore.
This kind of relates back to last month's blog, if companies had to tell us everything that is in their products- what would the materials marketplace look like? If a manufacturer had to prove beyond any reasonable doubt BEFORE their product was released that it caused no damage to human or animal systems- what would our options be? If the companies polluting the systems that give us cancer had to pay for the treatment and research, and put a warning on the label like cigarettes 'Warning, the processes that made this product create toxic gas that is released into the atmosphere'- who would choose those products or processes? Companies are protected behind proprietary rights instead of the people being protected from what these companies are making.
All in all, this is a Seriously a warped system, and I look forward to feedback on how to change it!
Of course this beyond frustrated me- I'll ride for what I support. And you ride for what you want to. Well that was my first reaction. Then, I crafted a message that described the reasons our causes were not so different. Since most cancers are results of environmental conditions, i.e. exposure to air, water, and land pollutions- we ARE in fact, on the same side. However, in raising money for a cure- you are not acknowledging the need for change at the source.
The United States National Cancer Institute (NCI) has an annual budget of about 4.8 billion dollars. Imagine if even 25% of that went to environmental protection (and therefore, prevention). We are looking for a cure to a disease we as a species are giving ourselves.
When you fall on the sidewalk and scrape your arm- your brain sends nerve impulses to your arm to tell you it's hurt and it needs attention. Isn't it possible that the rise and growing variations of cancers are our bodies telling us they're hurt. The things we put into and on our bodies (whether intentionally or not) are hurting us. And our DNA is screaming for change.
But in my friendly debates and discussions, we all agree humans can't be counted on to give up their standard of living for something different, even if it better for the whole. So , it will require top down measures. After awhile, the change will become 'the way things are'- and it won't seem so terrible anymore.
This kind of relates back to last month's blog, if companies had to tell us everything that is in their products- what would the materials marketplace look like? If a manufacturer had to prove beyond any reasonable doubt BEFORE their product was released that it caused no damage to human or animal systems- what would our options be? If the companies polluting the systems that give us cancer had to pay for the treatment and research, and put a warning on the label like cigarettes 'Warning, the processes that made this product create toxic gas that is released into the atmosphere'- who would choose those products or processes? Companies are protected behind proprietary rights instead of the people being protected from what these companies are making.
All in all, this is a Seriously a warped system, and I look forward to feedback on how to change it!
Comments
Post a Comment