Professor Young
English 1101
1/5
"When is it okay to descend?"
My initial answer to this question was "never." Because health and money go hand in hand. Most of the time you cannot have one without the other. Some people are luckier than others, however. Some people may only go to the doctor once a year for their annual checkup while some might have to stay weeks at a time. If someone did not have money how would they pay for their stay? Insurance certainly plays a role but in a general sense you need money to be healthy. Whole Foods a health food store, for example, is a very expensive. A gym membership, too. This is why most lower class people choose to eat at fast food restaurants. While that is a cheap, fast, and quick, option it is a silent killer. Because in time they will gain weight, become obese, and could develop diabetes, for example. While they do not have any money to take care of themselves. It is a giant circle. Because either way is a hard decision. Do they spend the little money they have on healthier foods? Well they could be unlucky and get sick anyway. I could spend all day thinking about these questions.
In my psychology class we were asked the question "Would you rather be lucky or smart?" Obviously "both" would be the best answer. Because you can be lucky and win the lottery but not be smart with your money, leaving you with less money than you started with. This is a common occurrence. You could be lucky in a health sense, and never develop cancer or be in a car accident. In this case money was not mentioned. But if you chose "smart" you could make a lot of money, or do something good in the world.
In Friendswood, I could see both sides of Mayor Wallen's view. Initially I saw him as a jerk because he was more interested in the economy than the health of his town's people. But how could I blame him? This is why personally I would not want to be in a high position. I could not make this decision. Obviously, he has his own immediate family to take care of and wants money to provide for them. How could he worry about every single individual person? But then again that is his job, he should not have ran for that position if he could not do so. His extended family and friends might not live in this town, so health wise they would not be affected by the contaminants. But on the other side, it is his job to take care of his people as a whole. It is his decision to prioritize health, wealth, both, or neither. They chose him. I keep asking myself "Why prioritize one or the other?" Couldn't he put the construction of Banes Field of pause, work with the EPA to actually take of his town, focusing on the health of his people, and then build up their economy? Yes it would take time. So his term might end before that is complete. But then he could make sure that the next mayor stuck to the plan. That would be focusing on the broad picture rather than having immediate income at the loss of many people. If he continues to disregard the "health" and focuses on the "money" than people might move anyway. And that would cause him to lose money. People would keep convincing each other to leave and would not recommend others to buy and move there. So his whole plan would backfire.
