Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary Principle (PP) never comes with a price tag. There is never an assessment or ROI. There is never a list of issues not funded, alternatives not created, solutions not explored, unintended consequences, etc.
PP comes with no expiration date or evaluation. It is the familiar tune of perceived but not real threat of an infinite disaster with zero to low probability. Nuclear energy is firmly in that position as are GMO foods. AGW as well.
The consistency of progressives adopting PP as an enabling principle, while also claiming to be the party of science, is the ultimate false premise. Either claim leads to the policy of choice being achieved whether or not it is a good thing or not.
All put together it is a strategy that seems to be working in some political groups and the Mainstream media, and it will continue if Trump is not successful. It is a strategy that also wants to a more socialistic power being exercised for larger government is the means and the goal, with world government as the path forward. This is not a conspiracy theory but rather a very strong probability. One need only look at those that support all of these approaches: Obama, Soros, Gore, Clintons, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, and so on.
Most of these issues will be a battle for the rest of our lives.
After getting into the “End of Doom” more, I have a better appreciation of the several comments you have made earlier regarding the Precautionary Principle, and its rather considerable negative side.
It is quite an enlightening discussion in the “End of Doom”. Many good points were made that might not be immediately obvious just at the mention of the Precautionary Principle:
Many other great examples, including lives lost because of absurdly long FDA approval cycles. PP is not precaution but has become synonymous with we can do what we want without accountability.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
This could also be inserted into the field above, or erased
Currently as a society, we are having a most difficult time discussing political issues. What is driving this? And why a rebirth in political culture would be a good thing.
Are "markets" dead as some would conjecture? Or is free enterprise what got us here?
At the heart of economics there are several possible economic schools of thought, the essence of these schools of thought and how they relate to our lives.
