Precautionary Principle, Primum Non Nocere, Paralysis

“The precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks—and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires. _C. Sunstein [as Quoted]

The "precautionary principle" appears to be the primary policy guide for the leftist Green environmental movement. It asserts that even in the absence of proven cause and effect, society must vigorously defend against hypothesised environmental harm. It is an open-ended prescription for a chaotic descent into an infinite regress of clashing prohibitions, denials, and punishments.

Here's more on the precautionary principle:

At this year's annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim, California, in a symposium titled "The Precautionary Principle: A Revolution in Environmental Policymaking?", environmentalist advocates and academics insisted that a principle of ultimate precaution should trump all other considerations in future environmental and technological policy making....

...The heart of the Principle, of course, is the admonition that "precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." As one biomedical researcher in the audience objected, all scientific conclusions are subject to revision, and none is ever "fully established." Since that is the case, the researcher pointed out, the Precautionary Principle could logically apply to every conceivable activity, since their outcomes are always in some sense uncertain. Furthermore, David Murray, the director of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington D.C., points out another possible--and disquieting--interpretation of the Principle. Anyone who merely raises "threats of harm" with no more evidence than their fearful imagination gets to invoke precautionary measures. Precautionists would not need to establish any empirical basis for their fears; they may simply posit that something might go wrong and thus stymie any proposed action. _Reason

This "principle" appears to be grounds for using mental phantasms as the basis for technological and environmental policy. That will work up until the point where the economy stagnates for lack of productive output, leading to a long-term population decline.

Eventually, of course, the more ambitious and intelligent people will rebel against the unimaginative drones of the environmental - governmental bureaucratic coalition who have eagerly put such suicidally paralytic "precautionary" policies into place. Basing one's policy upon such a negative principle leads inevitably to an unsustainable society -- unless your plan is to instigate a human dieoff.orgy and technological collapse. In that case, you will want to force humans back into a hunger - gatherer subsistence culture, with a global human population of no more than 100 million persons.

But believers in vague "precautionary principles" do not generally want to understand to figure:ground positive:negative nature of the world. They merely wish to have their own poorly-examined prejudices enforced upon everyone else.

Hippocrates stated the central principle most clearly: Primum Non Nocere, first do no harm . . . or something like that. One wishes not to act, if acting will only make things worse.

But often it is impossible to know or predict in advance the likelihood of a specific action leading to improving or worsening conditions. And in situations where large numbers of people are involved, there will always be those who object to action or inaction.

The question should be: What evidence of possible harm is sufficient to put an end to an action which could conceivably lead to a great good? There is no getting around the grappling in the mud and shite. Leftist Greens want to place themselves and their prejudices above the fray, to seize veto power over any action by commercial, industrial, governmental, or other entities.

Boston University law professor George Annas, a prominent bioethicist who favors the Precautionary Principle, clearly understands that it is not a value-neutral concept. He gleefully told me, "The truth of the matter is that whoever has the burden of proof loses."

The result: Anything new is guilty until proven innocent. It's like demanding that a newborn baby prove that it will never grow up to be a serial killer, or even just a schoolyard bully, before the baby is allowed to leave the hospital. Under this corollary, inventors, scientists, and manufacturers would have to prove that their creations wouldn't cause harm--ever--to the environment or human health before they would be allowed to offer them to the public. This is asking them to prove a negative. How can someone prove that a new plastic will never, ever interact with any metabolic pathway in any plant, animal, microbe, or person? There is simply no way to test for all possible effects given the millions of different species living on the earth. _Reason

Such a principle is a recipe for paralysis across the board of human action. And if modern humans know anything, they should know that they cannot afford to be paralysed -- not if they wish to avoid widespread poverty, starvation, disease, and bloodshed. The leftist Green fantasy of a great human dieoff.orgy is not merely hypothetical -- is sits firmly within the realm of possibility should technology be so tightly constrained as to essentially fail.

Here are some examples of the principle at work in US law:

American environmental law is filled with regulatory programs that authorize, or even compel, regulatory action in the absence of scientific certainty about the nature and extent of potential risks to the environment or public health. The Clean Air Act, for example, requires that the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopt measures to control various types of air pollution when, in the administrator’s “judgment,” the emission of certain pollutants “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”6 Absolute proof or scientific certainty is not required. Rather, a “reasonable” belief in the possibility of future harm is sufficient—indeed, such a belief may require action.7 Other portions of the Clean Air Act require the EPA to set air-quality standards at the level “requisite to protect the public health” with “an adequate margin of safety,” irrespective of the cost.8 Thus, the law requires the EPA to set the standard at a level more stringent than that known to threaten public health.
In a public policy context, ‘better safe than sorry’ is a fairly vacuous instruction. Taken literally, the precautionary principle is either wholly arbitrary or incoherent.

The Endangered Species Act also requires government action in the absence of scientific certainty. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service must list species as endangered or threatened on the basis of the “best scientific and commercial data available.”9 That the “best available” scientific evidence may be inconclusive or uncertain does not relieve the Fish and Wildlife Service of its obligation to list a species if the “best available” evidence suggests that it could be threatened with extinction.

Federal environmental law also includes requirements that federal agencies consider the “full range of alternatives” and their likely environmental effects before taking action. Consider the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the federal government to consider not only the likely environmental consequences of major federal actions but also various alternatives, including forgoing the proposed action altogether.10 This seems to line up nicely with the Wingspread Statement’s call for “an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” _American.com

If any imaginary harm at all could come about as a result of an action -- regardless of the harm from inaction or the good from the action -- under the modern leftist Green principles, the action should be prohibited.

Clearly it is one short step to an all-pervading government control over virtually any conceivable action, and then to the arbitrary exercise of this control to benefit political friends and to harm political enemies. Such corrupt abuse of government power is inevitable, and grows more inevitable and horrific the greater the power of ideological government over virtually any private action.

The end result is a corrupt, quasi-totalitarian Green dictatorship, ruling over an increasingly impoverished, polarised, and suffering human population.

It is difficult to see such misery by merely looking at the words and reading the language of the laws, regulations, and appropriated powers. Even those few individuals who actually do read the acts of Congress and the executive orders might find it hard to foresee the consequences accurately. But the chaotic and counter-productive consequences are unavoidable, once the laws and rules are put in place and strictly enforced.

The first remedy is to return to reasonable standards of evidence, causation, and proof -- in other words, to enforce the Hippocratic rule of "first do no harm" on Congress and the entire governmental structure. If all human governments were forced to abide by such time-tested wisdom first of all, as was intended by the US Constitutional Congress, the massively dysfunctional human world as we know it would not take its current form.

In a human world subject to evolutionary constraints, paralysis is not a workable principle. The self-righteous and vacuous promoters of the modern leftist Green precautionary principle are likely to drown in the tumult resulting from their own policies, unless they cynically plan ahead far enough to step outside the maelstrom. Imagine that -- lefty-Luddites going Galt to escape their own self-created apocalypse arising from playing it "too safe."

In the future we will need to explore the issue of determining levels of risk, and how to make decisions based upon different methods of determining risk.

Off topic desultory aside:

Pascal's Wager is a similar "better safe than sorry" general approach to policy-making -- specifically the personal policy of belief or non-belief in a superior being, god, or God. Pascal suggested that a person had nothing to lose from believing in God, and everything to gain.

But Pascal's principle suffers from a similar lack of "fleshing out" as the so-called precautionary principle. What if God is actually a devil, who only torments those who believe in him? In that case, it would be far better not to believe in God than to do so. And so on, down a million different alternative ways of looking at the human :: superior being contrast and juxtaposition. Pascal's unspoken assumptions are too parochial and constricting to apply to more than a miniscule fraction of the infinite possibilities.

Pascal is discussing the personal risk of "eternal fate." Fortunately, most modern governments have not yet overtly inserted themselves into that particular topic.

Organising Community Riots: Revolutionary Without a Clue

... Those who run up debt in good times can borrow only so much more when a recession strikes. And heavily indebted governments postpone fiscal stabilization at their peril. If you wait to reform until the bond market calls time, you are—to use a technical term from economics—screwed. _NiallFerguson

Revolutionary Riots Spill Over from Arabs to Europe to US?
If you are US President Obama, you are ready to blame almost anyone else for the economic despair settling over the American population. As a community organiser, President Obama's instinct is to call out the shock troops, take to the streets, and pin the blame on big banks and capitalism. In fact, billions of US$ were recently diverted from Obama's stimulus moneys to community organising groups, for just that contingency -- among others.

In three short years, Obama has added over $3 trillion to the US national debt. And rather than curtailing the deficit as the president had promised, it is getting much worse. Debt is a killer, but it is easy for the politicians who are responsible for the debt to point to everyone but themselves.

Riots in Europe are occurring as European governments look into the abyss of massive debt and cautiously tinker with a few timid spending reforms. But the people of Europe have come to feel entitled, and will not tolerate even the hint of a retreat from the wet nurse nanny state toward a more firm and responsible oversight government.

Americans are beginning to feel the same sense of blanket entitlement as the Europeans, thanks in part to having elected a community organiser as US President. Due to this massive growth of entitlement sense, the same type of riots seen in Arab countries and in Europe could easily spread to the large central cities of the US and Canada.

Risk of systemic fallout from Eurozone crisis

More from Mish on European abyss

The Obama path to collapse

Politically Correct Delusions and Madnesses of Crowds

The fates of modern democratic societies are dependent far more upon the behaviour of crowds -- or the mob -- than most citizens would like to believe. Popular culture is determined by mob tastes and preferences, and the often unpredictable behaviour of mobs on election day is bemoaned by leaders of all political parties -- at one time or another. Mob behaviours are guided by mob beliefs, which are as often as not, delusional. Here is a good example of a modern popular delusion from Princeton Physics Professor William Happer:

I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.

...We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.

Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it?

...As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.

...We would be perfectly healthy in a world with little or no atmospheric CO2—except that we would have nothing to eat and a few other minor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm. If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2.

The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.

...A rare case of good correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is provided by ice-core records of the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of the last million years of so. But these records show that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 levels, so that the levels were an effect of temperature changes. This was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans and the reverse effect when they cooled.

...The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years (the “Phanerozoic” period). The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth’s temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one. _WUWT

Full article by Professor Happer at First Things

Another popular delusion of politically correct crowds is a strong belief in the desirability of replacing modern coal, gas, and nuclear power plants with wind and solar power.

Mass delusions do not require reason or logic to gain converts. They only need to project the view that "everyone knows that ..." "every schoolboy knows ..." or "everybody believes that ..." This false sense of security in perceived numbers of believers has taken in a huge number of pseudo-intellectuals within the academy, in journalism, in politics, and in popular media and entertainment. All the better to project the delusion of universal belief.

In hindsight, such delusional madnesses are quite clearly absurd and without rational foundation. But when one is living through the delusion, the primeval instincts of the species hold sway.

Basic Reading on crowd behaviour:

Gustave le Bon: The Crowd
Charles Mackay: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Both titles above are also available for download at the Gutenberg Project

More on Gustave le Bon from Against Politics

23 May 2011 More: The increasingly rowdy and violent mobs known as government unions should be seen a particularly ominous portent for the future, to anyone who cares about freedom and independent action.

Debt and Demography: A Deadly Double Dose

Mish
Interest on the US national debt is scheduled to explode wildly out of control, faster than entitlements, faster than any other government expenditure. And yet the US government cannot bring itself to stop its suicidally profligate deficit spending, adding over US$1 trillion a year to the debt!.

This is clearly a global problem, not just a US problem. As the economic foundations of the world's military hegemon and economic powerhouse crumble under an overload of debt and collapsing demographics, the rest of the world is going to feel the pain as well. Just as US baby boomers can find no one to buy their accumulated lifetime wealth, so the US government is finding it harder to find buyers for its accumulating debt.

Across the advanced economies, demographics are collapsing. And the US is not even on the list of the 17 countries with the fastest-collapsing demographics. The deadly combination of exponentially rising debt on top of a quickly collapsing demographic, becomes irreversible after a certain point. But in order for welfare states to maintain their bloated social benefit spending schedules, they must go deeply into debt -- just at the time that their productive workers are disappearing in time.

At the state government level of the US, reality is slowly and spottily sinking into the minds of those who are tasked with keeping the pensions and benefits solvent. But the blowback from leftist government unions, communtiy organisers, and other leftist special interest groups is severe and verging on open violence. In Europe the leftist backlash against proposed austerity programs -- even very modest and minimal plans -- is likewise bordering on open insurrection.

Obama has a plan for a fundamentally different America. We know that Obama has a plan -- he must have a plan! But we cannot decrypt the US President's plan from his words or even his actions. We may have to wait a hundred years, and look back in time at what we can learn about Mr. Obama's plans, to finally understand.

Al Fin has been suggesting that readers should buy precious metals, acquire the capacity to grow their own food, develop the means to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your possessions, and more -- for years now. Some readers may still wonder what he is getting at....

France, Germany, UK Agree: Multiculturalism Has Failed

France's Sarkozy declared, just yesterday, that multiculturalism has failed.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

"My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups. _AFP

The UK's Cameron had asserted just this past Saturday, that multiculturalism is a failure:

Prime Minister David Cameron, in a speech attended by world leaders, on Saturday criticized his country’s longstanding policy of multiculturalism, saying it was an outright failure and partly to blame for fostering Islamist extremism. He said the U.K. needs a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to extremism. "If we are to defeat this threat, I believe it's time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past," he told an international conference in Munich. _MSNBC

Only this past October, Germany's Angela Merkel stated outright that multiculturalism had utterly failed:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a gathering of young members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party this weekend that the "multikulti" concept – where people of different backgrounds would live together happily – does not work in Germany. _CSM_More_

For many years, lonely and persecuted writers, politicians, and speakers have attempted to convey this message -- this utter failure of multiculturalism and European self-abnegation -- to no avail. Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were assassinated for speaking this truth. Geert Wilders has been threatened with death by Muslim hate groups, and is being persecuted by his own government and by the UK Labour government which preceded Cameron's.

Europe has long been a weak-kneed patsy for an increasingly militant third world presence. In the face of decreasing birth rates among Europeans, both legal and illegal third world immigrants have flooded European schools and birthing wards with the coming waves of another Muslim youth bulge -- this time a threat from within.

Prisons of Europe are beginning to fill with newcomers and children of newcomers, as the native children of Europe find themselves in the minority on schoolgrounds and on the streets. Young girls of Europe are increasingly under threat from rape gangs and worse. Young native boys are beaten by gleeful immigrant gangs who laugh their victory over the natives -- a fading demographic.

Multiculturalism has failed? Of course it has bloody well failed, you pathetic political panderers and fools. For some of your countries it is already too late for anything meaningful to be done, even if your men had it in them to stand up. Sadly, your police forces themselves have been so overrun and subdued by multiculturalists, that any European with the temerity to stand up for himself or his family against outsider violence, would be treated worse by the police than the offenders themselves.

The demographic collapse of Europe was necessary in order to leave the continent helpless to assault from without, and increasingly from within. Now there is little that most European countries can do to reverse the decay and eventual overthrow.

Europe as Lebanon? Europe as Eurabia? Islam is a religion of fertility as it is a religion of hatred and violence. If Islam is involved in the particular multiculturalism that has invaded your country, then you will have a very difficult time coping -- particularly if your own birthrates are failing.

Cameron, Sarkozy, and Merkel can make all the noises against multiculturalism they wish. Unless they are willing to back those words with meaningful action -- and to be willing to go against the political correctness of their own decaying societies -- the effort will be too feeble, and ultimately futile.

Vitriolic Language from Left Meant to Instigate Civil War?

It is difficult to understand the deluge of vitriol and hatred pouring out of US leftist media outlets, lefty blogs, and US Democratic Party politicians following the tragic killings and woundings which occurred in Tucson last week. Much of the outrageous language appears geared to trigger a stereotypical rage in the reader. It is as if these "leaders" and "journalists" want to instigate the very type of violence which they are pretending to decry.

During the George W. Bush presidency journalists, celebrities, opposition politicians, bloggers, and leftists of all stripes used incendiary language in discussing the idea that the president or vice president might (hopefully in their minds) be assassinated. Many of the very same "indignant leftists" who are opportunistically raising the threat of violence, were busy joking and talking about the possible assassinations of Bush and Cheney. The American left is a sick and putric cesspool of hatred, and has been for decades now.

In a sensitive and incisively worded video, Sarah Palin responds to the cynical and engineered outcry from the left. Predictably, the leftists -- caught in their contemptible misbehaviour and abuse of public trust -- are reacting to the video with howls of stiffly postured indignation.

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Palin's use of the term "blood libel" has proven particularly controversial, although it is quite understated in the way it was used in the video. Indeed, considering how Palin herself has been treated by the left, her tone on the video and elsewhere in public and professional life has been quite temperate.

Leftists have been poised for any possible incident which they could use for purposes of stirring up their lunatic fringe. Unfortunately, they jumped the gun on the Tucson tragedy, before any facts were in. And now they are committed to following it through to the bitter end.

Palin's video appears to be professionally produced, and was released in a very timely manner -- just before President Obama's trip to Tucson. The former governor's incisive video, along with the term "blood libel", appears to have forced the unhinged echo chorus on the left to "double down" on their public idiocy.

We can only hope that the Tucson wounded will recover as fully as possible, and that the family and friends of those who died will somehow find a positive meaning in their loss.

But on the political front, the insanity from the left appears to be deepening and broadening in a most astounding and sickening manner.

H/T News Alert

The Impending Cult of the Great Green Global Suicide

James Lee, devoted member of the CGGGS (cult of the great green global suicide) committed suicide by SWAT at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland.   Mr. Lee was strongly motivated by Al Gore and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. More on the story from Wired:

According to a message on the savetheplanetprotest.com website believed run by Lee, the suspect demanded that the Discovery Channel broadcast its “commitment to save the planet.”

Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. A game show format contest would be in order. Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation. Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

_Wired

Salon has more on the story, suggesting that Mr. Lee is a solitary, deranged gunman who took Thomas Malthus just a bit too seriously. But if Mr. Lee were, in truth, as solitary as some would have us believe, why are there so many voices on the wires and airwaves who sound just like Mr. Lee?

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is dedicated to the extinction of the human race -- or perhaps only those members of the race who do not whole-heartedly ascribe to the tenets of the VHEM religion. Some members and fellow travelers of VHEM are walking and talking within visual, auditory, or internet range of you at this very moment. When will they take the next step?

Of course there may be some who suggest that the current government of the United States is displaying some sympathies with the VHEM -- through its energy policies. Al Fin himself has occasionally described the Obama Pelosi energy policy as a form of energy starvation, or economic suicide. The way the O - P regime has dragged its feet on development of energy resources of all types -- except for ineffectual and corrupt big wind and solar -- is a sure tipoff that harder times are ahead, unless significant changes in the regime occur soon.

Not that top politicians or bureaucrats have any intention of killing themselves. No, they intend for you to be the victim of their policies. As for themselves? They anticipate sailing through their self-made disasters virtually untouched.

The fantasies of leftists have taken on macabre and disturbing overtones as of late. Mr. Lee's suicide by SWAT is but one of the unsettling directions such fantasies can turn. Expect more occurrences of leftist inspired eco-terrorism in the not-so-distant future.

Somewhere, in a jail cell not so far away, the Unabomber is giggling.

More (5Sep10):

The essence of progressivism, of which environmentalism has become an appendage, is the faith that all will be well once we have concentrated enough power in Washington and have concentrated enough Washington power in the executive branch and have concentrated enough "experts" in that branch. Hence the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to do what the elected representatives of the rubes refuse to do in limiting greenhouse gases. Mead says of today's environmental movement:

"It proposes big economic and social interventions and denies that unintended consequences and new information could vitiate the power of its recommendations. It knows what is good for us, and its knowledge is backed up by the awesome power and majesty of the peer review process. The political, cultural, business and scientific establishments stand firmly behind global warming today -- just as they once stood firmly behind Robert Moses, urban renewal and big dams. They tell us it's a sin to question the consensus, the sign of bad moral character to doubt. Bambi, look in the mirror. You will see Godzilla looking back." _WaPo