The Precautionary Principle

Ned Ludd is alive and well today in the modern environmental movement. As our world changes and societies develop, the need for advanced technology to help solve or mitigate our problems becomes increasingly apparent. Though Luddites openly expressed their hatred of technology, the neo-environmentalist uses half-truth and psudo-science to hide this aversion. This relatively new way to deride technology is called the Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle, a bi-product of the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-Safety, simply states “that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” On the surface, the Precautionary Principle may seem reasonable, but one must only look below the surface to see that mere speculation is enough to trigger its application.

Let us forget for the time being that the Precautionary Principle asks advocates of technology to prove a negative (a logical impossibility) and concentrate on its intended purpose. Proponents of the Principle create an impossible situation whereby anything new can be rejected on the basis that any amount of evidence is insufficient to show no harm.

For example, if a new technology is shown to increase food production but concern about its effects are voiced, one must prove that such an application does not have negative long-term effects in order for it to be utilized. In simple terms, advocates of precaution are baring the use of a technology based on speculation. This both hampers the process of gathering evidence, and ensures that new introductions of technology face insurmountable opposition.

Conversely, the Precautionary Principle can be use by supporters of a specific action to bolster their claims of a need to act. Take Global Warming for instance. Like it or not, the debate is NOT over and scientific consensus has NOT been met and this simple fact is not overlooked by precautionary advocates. Using a lack on scientific consensus as the catalyst, the Precautionary Principle will induce action.

The Precautionary Principle is an unscientific method of constructing an argument so that advocates of precaution have an unfair advantage. Thankfully, this advantage only works in the court of public opinion since neither science nor fact really matter. The true danger lies in the invariable inclusion of public opinion into decisions that should be left to those who value logical, fact based and scientific discourse.

On Food Marketing

Food companies spend billions of dollars every year to convince us that their product is better than the next guy. Coke is better than Pepsi, McDonalds is better than Burger King. The end result of this campaign of confusion is that people make decisions based on catchy jingles or special effects filled commercials rather than what the product truly is.

If Coca Cola advertised their product as caramel colored sugar water, do you think the psychological effect would be as substantial as millions of dollars spent on creating an animated commercial staring a warm lovable polar bear cub sharing a Coke with a baby penguin? Of course not! Coca Cola created this image to evoke feelings of camaraderie where even mortal enemies can put their differences aside and enjoy a nice cold Coke.

Or how about McDonalds? Would they have much economic success if they made commercials staring anyone of the 54% of obese Americans shoveling yet another double cheese burger into their mouth as they slurp down a nice cold caramel flavored sugar water drink while they use greasy salt covered fingers to cram more French fries into an already full belly?

Wake up people!!! These commercials are designed to hide the true nature of the products we thoughtlessly consume on a daily basis which are slowly but surely destroying our bodies, health care system and our children’s future. Of course, food companies defend themselves by saying they are simply making products that people want. In reality they are doing everything in their power to convince you that you want what they are making. To do this, food companies employ armies of marketing professionals and Dr’s of Psychology in order to create fancy marketing campaigns with statistically high levels of success.

I can’t blame food companies for their clever money-making schemes. However, I can blame each and every person who refuses to see past these gimmicks and allows their body be poisoned slowly but surely by unhealthy food engineered to keep you coming back for more.

As a free market capitalist, maybe I should invent the healthy whole-grain Twinkie infused with powerful antioxidants or the 100% natural Ding Dong with real Acai berry filling. If people are going to continue to be duped into eating garbage, I might as well make a few bucks off it.