5 ms·

I never understood how the Precautionary Principle wasn't just Pascal's Wager and subject to the same logical problems.

by bcoates 14y ago

enraged_camel 14y ago
Pascal's Wager: There is more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists. Anti-GMO Activists: There is more to be gained from assuming that GMOs are unsafe than that they are safe, and that a rational society should live as if they are unsafe. Sounds like the same logic to me.
- pohl 14y ago
  A casual observer might suspect that the two of you are being deliberately obtuse in order to cast the Precautionary Principle in negative light so that it might be more easily dismissed. I'll respond as if you are earnest students of reason, seeking to see the difference. Fortunately, the main difference is very simple: Pascal was wagering to gain something that cannot be shown to exist (an afterlife). The Precautionary Principle is counseling us to guard something known to exist (the environment in which we live) that is demonstrably essential to our own existence. Had Pascal been arguing as an atheist about why not to play Russian Roulette with his one and only life, the two arguments might be similar enough to legitimately confuse.
- turbojerry 14y ago
  There is no evidence for the existence of God(s), nor any evidence for the continuation of consciousness beyond death. There is a large body of testable evidence of organisms that are unsafe for human consumption. We cannot prove whether or not any changes introduced by humans via genetic engineering, whether intended or not (such as random mutations) will result in an unsafe product. The worst case being that we create a strain of organism that is superior to those we currently have, displacing all others in the environment and being unsafe for human or animal consumption, and if it is a staple crop one that leads to more starvation not less. As far as feeding an increasing population, the simple answer is not to have the increase. Even then our current agriculture system is heavily based on fossil fuels. Increasing cost of production and distribution if not outright decline in fossil fuel output is much more likely to lead to starvation.

I never understood how the Precautionary Principle wasn't just Pascal's Wager and subject to the same logical problems.

by bcoates 14y ago

I never understood how the Precautionary Principle wasn't just Pascal's Wager and subject to the same logical problems.

Pascal's Wager: There is more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists. Anti-GMO Activists: There is more to be gained from assuming that GMOs are unsafe than that they are safe, and that a rational society should live as if they are unsafe. Sounds like the same logic to me.

pohl 14y ago
A casual observer might suspect that the two of you are being deliberately obtuse in order to cast the Precautionary Principle in negative light so that it might be more easily dismissed. I'll respond as if you are earnest students of reason, seeking to see the difference. Fortunately, the main difference is very simple: Pascal was wagering to gain something that cannot be shown to exist (an afterlife). The Precautionary Principle is counseling us to guard something known to exist (the environment in which we live) that is demonstrably essential to our own existence. Had Pascal been arguing as an atheist about why not to play Russian Roulette with his one and only life, the two arguments might be similar enough to legitimately confuse.
turbojerry 14y ago
There is no evidence for the existence of God(s), nor any evidence for the continuation of consciousness beyond death. There is a large body of testable evidence of organisms that are unsafe for human consumption. We cannot prove whether or not any changes introduced by humans via genetic engineering, whether intended or not (such as random mutations) will result in an unsafe product. The worst case being that we create a strain of organism that is superior to those we currently have, displacing all others in the environment and being unsafe for human or animal consumption, and if it is a staple crop one that leads to more starvation not less. As far as feeding an increasing population, the simple answer is not to have the increase. Even then our current agriculture system is heavily based on fossil fuels. Increasing cost of production and distribution if not outright decline in fossil fuel output is much more likely to lead to starvation.