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.