We have all heard of the old entrapment question "have you stopped beating your wife ?" Any answer makes you wife beater. Do some in the environment movement use the PP in the same way? If you are asked if you have followed precautionary principles in your new medicine/development/mobile phone tower/mine/factory/pesticide, how do you answer? If you have followed the PP, then your idea must be stopped because it could cause some harm at some time. Alternatively, you ignore the PP, then you are a narrow minded idiot hell bent on global destruction.
Ken Cussen discusses the precautionary principle on an ABC Radio National Counterpoint program. (Podcast below). Ken Cussen is concerned that rational argument is too often shut down when the words precautionary principle or sustainability are used. He argues that at heart it's just cost-benefit analysis that ignores the benefits.
HE describes in the podcast how hard it is to maintain progress when someone throws the PP up as an argument against you. He highlights the issue using the example of penicillin, and how in today's climate, the lifesaving benefits of penicillin would be offset against the allergic reaction suffered by some people. Yes, penicillin does cause harm in some people, but it will and has saved many many more lives. Clearly, the PP is not the appropriate device to assess the benefits of penicillin.
No comments:
Post a Comment