5 thoughts on “The Precautionary Principle”

1. I tossed my old “try the precautionary principle on itself” argument in there. Maybe it’s just the mathematician in me, but I despise arguments that are inherently self-contradicting like the precautionary principle.

2. The precautionary principle is based on the scariness of the possibility, not its likelihood. So my question to PPers is, why not just make Stephen King dictator and get it over with?

3. The precautionary fallacy would bother me less if it was applied across the board to everything else (not just cherry picking global warming). There is an opportunity risk that needs to be assessed here.

   If such an assessment was made, I expect a much stronger interest in geo-engineering, space settlement, stronger economies with large reserves, greater adaptability, and what not, would prevail.

4. The precautionary principle isn’t new, it is a part of human intuition. How many people on this discussion board have health insurance? Car insurance? Homeowners insurance? Investors insurance? Hurricane/Tornado/Earthquake Insurance? Those of you who don’t have insurance–how many of you wish you did? This is the precautionary principle at work–so, why don’t we insure our home, our planet, by insuring against global warming?

5. vitamins

   When we have enough replicable/valid science and the actual technology to understand and control the climate it would certainly make sense to insure against global warming.
   As it now stands we are as likely to mess up the climate as help it.

Comments are closed.