Dear runner,

What? You talking to me about cliches?
Great try!

Dear runner,

I did specify, that "no one with an ounce of
intelligence would deny..." so why do you feel that
I'm trying to shut you down? I made that statement
generally speaking - because most people do have at
least an ounce. Sounds like you're feeling a bit
inadequate.

And that's not my fault.

Shadow Minister

I agree, the basis of the precautionary principle is sound if it requires a proper consideration of the effects of unlikely events with significant consequences. The problem is that it has mutated into a “principle” that demands we never do anything, just in case. It’s also excessively asymmetrical, under-valuing the positive consequences of actions relative to the negative.

This article is a reflection on what we would have missed out on if past generations had applied the principle:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DD7A.htm

Thanks Geoff. Yeah my old mate Spindoc, with whom I have had exchanges on this forum for quite a few years now, is an odd-bod for sure! ( :>)
.

Spinny, you wrote:

<< The issue is that Don’s proposal is for the Precautionary Principle, which is inertia or maintenance of the status quo, to be replaced with the Proactionary Principle where action is preferred to inertia. >>

Well that just seems to be entirely about-face! The precautionary principle is not analogous to inertia!

For example, as it concerns so-called CAGW, the status quo (business as usual) is the continuation of the exploitation of fossil fuels, at a rapidly increasing rate.

Exercising the precautionary principle is very different to the status quo!

The AGW debate is an excellent example of where the precautionary and proactionary principles should come together. Not only should we be very cautious about the continued unfettered exploitation of fossil fuels for reasons pertaining to climate change, but we should be very mindful of the economic impact as oil becomes harder to obtain and the price increases, and we should thus be striving to develop alternative energy sources with a passion!

Caution and proactivity….they go hand in hand!

And um… I wouldn’t have a clue as to what you are on about with this ‘socializing the topic’ business!

Yes, Rhian,

>This article is a reflection on what we would have missed out on if past generations had applied the principle:<

Like:
Asbestosis,
Thalidomide,
Chernobyl,
Fukishima,
multiple species extinction,
abandoned beehive syndrome,
various wars,
widespread obesity,
Aids epidemic,
world over-population,
acid rain, mad cow disease, et al.
(Global Warming?)

But, of course you mean penicillin, antibiotics, vaccines, air travel, transplant surgery, high-speed trains, iPads, internet, 'twitter' and 'facebook', nuclear energy, solar panels, wind-power ....
And, the A-bomb, H-bomb, intercontinental ballistic missiles, 'victory' in various wars, Corporatism and the GFC?

"Moderation in all things"? Or, "Let the Devil take the hindmost"?

Science has provided many advancements. The question is when and how to apply caution.
Or, do we intend to ignore any 'uncomfortable' truths or indications?
(To our possible detriment.)

To err is human; to be idiotic is not 'sublime'.

The precautionary principle dictates that you minimize risks if you can't eliminate them. i.e.

When you drive, you obey the road rules, use a seat belt etc, and you will minimize (but not eliminate) your chance of getting killed on the way to work. The only way to eliminate all risk is to stay in bed.

Another example is Coal Seam Gas (CSG). It is true that there were problems when extraction first started with contamination of underground water, but the question is whether the risks have been reduced. The answer is yes. The chemicals being used have changed, and what was happening decades ago is not happening now. The benefits are a cheap clean and relatively low GHG emitting source of energy that the US has used to drastically reduce its energy costs and reliance on coal.

In Australia, there is a hysterical fear campaign being run against CSG. There are thousands of wells already in use, with no verifiable damage. If CSG was exploited to the extent of the US, our power prices would drop, so would our GHG emissions, farmers would get a bundle for their land, and the only people that would lose out would be the greens.