Philosophy: Risk Avoidence?

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 16:43:23 MST


http://www.techcentralstation.be/2051/wrapper.jsp?PID=2051-100&
CID=2051-011703N

<<Are You Better Safe Than Sorry?

by Hans Labohm [ 01/17/2003 ]

'Better safe than sorry.' This is the crux of the precautionary principle.
The application of the principle manifests itself everywhere. There are crash
barriers along the highway and handrails along the staircase.

But the ladder of the traditional window cleaner does not have a handrail.
And the same is true for the ladders in sluices, which may give rise to
hair-raising spectacles of a passing skipper using the ladder to take out his
St. Bernard dog. We do take part in traffic, although it may cost human
lives. We finance the fire brigade via our taxes, but not every house has a
sprinkler installation. And at the apogee of the Cold War, there were even
people who did not possess a nuclear free shelter in their backyard.

In other words, a risk-free world is unthinkable and there are limits to the
application of the precautionary principle. We believe that some risks are
too small to warrant additional expenditure. If we would spend more on them,
then we will have to forgo the satisfaction of other needs, including the
precautionary measures that will protect us against other risks that we
believe to be more likely. In short, the application of the precautionary
principle should be subject to the same simple cost-benefit analysis, which
we also apply in all other fields of human decision-making.

Stagnation

Over the last decade or so, the precautionary principle has been given more
priority than before, especially in Europe. Even to the extent that The
European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs, David Byrne, has
reluctantly raised the question whether Europe wasn't exaggerating a little
bit and had perhaps fallen victim to a certain degree of risk paranoia. But
his attempts to do something about it in order to remedy what he has called
the European 'GMO-psychosis' (GMO = genetically modified organisms), have
mainly faltered so far.

Also his colleague for trade, Pascal Lamy, is troubled by this phenomenon,
particularly because there exist important differences in risk appreciation
between the US and the EU. These give rise to trade tensions, for instance as
regards the use of growth hormones for meat and the use of GMOs in vegetable
food production. >>

    
    



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST