Comment by samdoesnothing
2 months ago
> It's that you can't mechanically shift the burden of proof to anything "new" and assign a lower risk to the status quo by default
Not quite - it is true that you cannot assign a lower risk to the status quo by default, but the burden of proof is on the new intervention to prove that it's safe, not on detractors to prove that it isn't.
In other words, if the world is functioning today, you need to prove that your intervention won't cause ruin, no matter how small the chance or how big the upside.
Well, once again, your logic halts the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in early 2021.
No because it wasn't mandatory in most places, so there was no systemic risk. People were free to take it, in the same way people are free to drink alcohol, and the precautionary principle doesn't apply to individual risk.
I still think we are talking about two different things here.
I'm not saying you opposed the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. That would have been a batshit position to take (though: many did). I'm saying that the Precautionary Principle calls for exactly that position, and, moreover, the Extended Precautionary Principle proposed upthread --- the one where we look especially askance at risks where a party involved stands to profit --- opposes it even moreso.
I can't say enough that this is not random message-board dorm-room logic, and that lots has been written about this flaw in the simplistic application of the Precautionary Principle. I already gave a link upthread; I feel like I've done my due diligence at this point.
We're talking about the same thing. I wonder if you've just never read anything deeper about the Precautionary Principle than activists weaponizing it to make points about glyphosate (or vaccines or nuclear power).
2 replies →
You used that trigger word, it probably is what's getting you downvoted even though you are correct.
As always, it comes down to the risk of X vs the risk of not doing X. And history has clearly shown we made the right choice.
How do you make that calculation when there is a small possibility of infinite risk? That is why the PP exists, otherwise you either ignore the possibility of total disaster events, or you cannot choose to act.
3 replies →
Which trigger word are you referring to?
1 reply →