4 ms·

This is a logical trap. Mostly because people who worry about larger consequences can't satisfactorily describe how those can be evaluated. It's simply a linger

by madrox 8y ago

This is a logical trap. Mostly because people who worry about larger consequences can't satisfactorily describe how those can be evaluated. It's simply a lingering question that cannot be answered. If we treated every issue this way, nothing would ever happen, because larger consequences can never be perfectly foreseen. Put another way, imagine you had a drug that cured the fatal illness of a family member. That drug was known to be safe for individuals to take. However, no one could receive the drug until a study was performed to understand how a decline in the mortality rate would affect the population. It's questionable whether your family member would survive until that study was performed. How would you feel?

bencollier49 8y ago
That's a false equivalence. People have some knowledge of ecosystems, and they understand that removing a major component of an ecosystem might have catastrophic effects. Making a small change to the survivability of humanity is not comparable, and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance.
- Reelin 8y ago
  > and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance I agree, but would also like to point out that as technology in general becomes more "powerful" (for lack of a better term) ever increasing levels of precaution are inevitably going to be called for. The Wright brothers certainly didn't need to be regulated, but I'm glad SpaceX is...
Reelin 8y ago
I believe that the point being made by the person you're replying to isn't to avoid acting until future effects can be perfectly foreseen, as that milestone will generally never be reached. Rather, the future effects of an action should be evaluated to a level befitting the severity of the potential consequences. Put another way, if something can be trivially reversed and can't reasonably be predicted to result in any severe negative effects, then not much analysis is called for. On the other hand, if something can be reasonably expected to have a lasting impact, particularly a negative one, careful analysis prior to action is much more important. In cases where it's difficult even to articulate the approximate range of possible effects, a thorough analysis becomes extremely important.
- jon_richards 8y ago
  >the future effects of an action should be evaluated to a level befitting the severity of the potential consequences. In particular, this should be be done over evaluating based on the emotional appeal of the consequences. Tragedies vs statistics, etc.

by madrox 8y ago

bencollier49 8y ago

That's a false equivalence. People have some knowledge of ecosystems, and they understand that removing a major component of an ecosystem might have catastrophic effects. Making a small change to the survivability of humanity is not comparable, and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance.

Reelin 8y ago
> and certainly it is nonsense to suggest that this is equivalent to imposing the precautionary principle on every possible technological advance I agree, but would also like to point out that as technology in general becomes more "powerful" (for lack of a better term) ever increasing levels of precaution are inevitably going to be called for. The Wright brothers certainly didn't need to be regulated, but I'm glad SpaceX is...

Reelin 8y ago

I believe that the point being made by the person you're replying to isn't to avoid acting until future effects can be perfectly foreseen, as that milestone will generally never be reached. Rather, the future effects of an action should be evaluated to a level befitting the severity of the potential consequences. Put another way, if something can be trivially reversed and can't reasonably be predicted to result in any severe negative effects, then not much analysis is called for. On the other hand, if something can be reasonably expected to have a lasting impact, particularly a negative one, careful analysis prior to action is much more important. In cases where it's difficult even to articulate the approximate range of possible effects, a thorough analysis becomes extremely important.

jon_richards 8y ago
>the future effects of an action should be evaluated to a level befitting the severity of the potential consequences. In particular, this should be be done over evaluating based on the emotional appeal of the consequences. Tragedies vs statistics, etc.