3 ms·

With all due respect, I suggest ignoring that teacher. This is the 'precautionary principle' which, while it sounds all nice and sensible on first hearing, is

by benl 19y ago

With all due respect, I suggest ignoring that teacher. This is the 'precautionary principle' which, while it sounds all nice and sensible on first hearing, is actually a recipe for justifying all kinds of mindless nonsense. "Vaccines might cause Autism -- best not immunise my kids against that killer disease measles." "WiFi might cause cancer -- best not put wireless networks in schools" "Industrialiation might cause global warming -- best not let poor countries build power plants"

davidw 19y ago
You are playing a bit of a game by equating something where there are some definite indications in one direction and a lot of unknowns (global warming), with things where there is little real evidence and a much more well understood system (vaccines). And sometimes, it makes sense to be cautious. Smoking did, and does cause cancer and other health problems. There is pretty good evidence that the climate is changing (glaciers, icecaps) - that much is obvious even for those who don't want it to be true, at this point. The open question is whether it's us that's doing it. Given that we don't know, and we risk serious consequences, a bit of precaution doesn't seem so out of place. There are sensible ways to start working against global warming without wrecking the world economy - (republican economist) Greg Mankiw's "Pigou Club", for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club That's the sort of sensible, cautious approach that makes sense to me: heed the warning, start doing something, and keep studying, without losing your head and doing anything truly rash that would trash the economy, or go overboard the other way and simply ignore/downplay the whole thing because it doesn't fit into your view of politics. Also, as something of an aside, I have a lot of respect for that teacher - he was/is a bright guy not at all given to doom and gloom or handwaving - he was one of those teachers who could have had a good job in industry, no problem, but really loved teaching. His statement (which I only remember the gist of at this point) summed up both a sense of professional responsibility in admitting that there are a lot of known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and of a cautious, responsible approach to things that are potentially serious and dangerous. That's why I still remember it after 15+ years.

by benl 19y ago

davidw 19y ago

You are playing a bit of a game by equating something where there are some definite indications in one direction and a lot of unknowns (global warming), with things where there is little real evidence and a much more well understood system (vaccines). And sometimes, it makes sense to be cautious. Smoking did, and does cause cancer and other health problems. There is pretty good evidence that the climate is changing (glaciers, icecaps) - that much is obvious even for those who don't want it to be true, at this point. The open question is whether it's us that's doing it. Given that we don't know, and we risk serious consequences, a bit of precaution doesn't seem so out of place. There are sensible ways to start working against global warming without wrecking the world economy - (republican economist) Greg Mankiw's "Pigou Club", for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club That's the sort of sensible, cautious approach that makes sense to me: heed the warning, start doing something, and keep studying, without losing your head and doing anything truly rash that would trash the economy, or go overboard the other way and simply ignore/downplay the whole thing because it doesn't fit into your view of politics. Also, as something of an aside, I have a lot of respect for that teacher - he was/is a bright guy not at all given to doom and gloom or handwaving - he was one of those teachers who could have had a good job in industry, no problem, but really loved teaching. His statement (which I only remember the gist of at this point) summed up both a sense of professional responsibility in admitting that there are a lot of known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and of a cautious, responsible approach to things that are potentially serious and dangerous. That's why I still remember it after 15+ years.