|Find & Read Isaiah 55: 9-11|
What is in a word... and how can a single word change the meaning or intention of any text?
Looking at the term “shall”, the several easy definitions are:
- (in the first person) expressing the future tense
- expressing a strong assertion or intention
- used in questions indicating offers or suggestions
- expressing an instruction or command
In a “legal” sense, the term “shall” is a command, not a request, suggestion nor opinion.
Thus why the climate talks of late 2015 became more of a dramatic affair than an actual resolution to address pollution as mentioned in the linked article in this sentence.
This next article is a bit less dramatic and clearer regarding the “market” always being the factor in determining what is done on the planet... the proverbial “babylon system” some of us have heard or read about.
The editing out of the term “shall” in the international agreement for the more convenient (and impotent) term “should” pretty much neutered the effort to curve pollutants being pushed into the atmosphere on the U.S.'s side.
If the term “shall” would have been signed by the parties (political entities) involved, then as was explained in the news, a treaty between nations would have been realized.
I'm surprised why the reluctance to do so, since all nations are conflating into a single conglomerate according to markets, economics and culture.
Perhaps it is too soon.
Or perhaps the financial interests are not leveraged out of their old energy systems and into the newer energy models to contemplate such a market move.
Such a demand on a market (or business interests) that is not ready, or willing, to change their dirty operations into cleaner solutions... would not only be costly, but a major inconvenience.
But notice how John Kerry is promoting the “market opportunity” in the second news article from the New York Times.
Technologies already exist for clean energy production: wind, solar and others.
Blanketing rooftops with solar panels would quickly resolve energy concerns for the U.S., but there is so much $$ that would be directed away from the current infrastructure, the current transmission of energy, and other 'inconveniences' for the old order of things.
It seems the motivation isn't dire enough... perhaps when people have to walk around with oxygen masks will people then have a change of mind (and heart).
The pollutants in the air in many major cities can spike into hazardous levels... or so scientists state.
Check the air quality in your corner of the world (if monitors exist).
In California, legislators passed a law to lower smog levels and also minimize the smell of car exhaust.
Some scientists claim that air pollutants cause Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
Great efforts and intentions... but just because you can't smell car exhaust doesn't mean it still isn't there nor causing damage to your body.
Imagine yourself going into an important meeting, and when you sign an agreement, the contract isn't really a promise to do anything, but simply an agreement to 'think' about it.
The U.S. and others make demands on China and India, yet are unwilling to face up to the same demands it seems, or so I read what the news articles or saying in few words.
This is, to me, the implications of changing a single word... in this case, from shall to should.
Should you clean up after yourself?
Shall you clean up after yourself.
Civilized places have ordinances in place to cite someone for littering... but such hand-slaps are not yet implemented for large polluters... but 'credits' are swapped between gross polluters and cleaner businesses... a shell game.
Aside from the argument of man-made climate change, it makes sense not to pollute the environment in any manner... whether the air, water, or ground.
Mankind derives their very existence from the earth; food to eat, water to drink and air to breathe.
No wonder some people desire to take a rocket ship to Mars... to escape an infested earth.
But to think the same ignorance won't repeat itself on Mars, or wherever else mankind's ambitious mind takes them, is to really put too much stock in mankind's obvious pattern of frailty, hypocrisy and arrogance.
If men and women who are “supposed” to represent the interests of mankind cannot stand up to meeting an obligation to clean up after themselves (and the people / financial entities they actually represent), a “shall” of sorts, then why do people think the same mindset will turn a distant planet into a new 'Eden' and not another pollution-riddled dump?
To me, the solution is a personally conscience decision... regardless if there is a profit to be turned.
The economic motivation in some people's decision to do anything is part of man's arrogance.
What I find encouraging is that some people in Today's generation, as in generations past, are not 'buying in' to the consumerism, the waste, the chasing after what glitters and shines, the monkey-see-monkey-do.
Growing trends, both corporate and personal (a, b, c, d,) show the mindset of the wasting away of 'things', are being replaced with a 'return' to the reality that we derive our very physical sustenance from the earth.
How can we continue to dump trash in our own backyard and avoid the pile up, smell and disease?
Your decisions today determine tomorrow.