https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principleThe precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.
The term "precautionary principle" is generally considered to have arisen in English from a translation of the German term Vorsorgeprinzip in the 1980s.
The concepts underpinning the precautionary principle pre-date the term's inception. For example, the essence of the principle is captured in a number of cautionary aphorisms such as "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", "better safe than sorry", and "look before you leap". The precautionary principle may also be interpreted as the evolution of the ancient medical principle of "first, do no harm" to apply to institutions and institutional decision-making processes rather than individuals.
In economics, the precautionary principle has been analysed in terms of the effect on rational decision-making of the interaction of irreversibility and uncertainty. Authors such as Epstein (1980) and Arrow and Fischer (1974) show that irreversibility of possible future consequences creates a quasi-option effect which should induce a "risk-neutral" society to favor current decisions that allow for more flexibility in the future. Gollier et al. (2000) conclude that "more scientific uncertainty as to the distribution of a future risk – that is, a larger variability of beliefs – should induce Society to take stronger prevention measures today."
Instead of being the lost soul of a loner drifting aimlessly having a peripatetic wind, I'm now preferring something with more bite to it. As experience is just nature cruel way of giving the exams first followed by their lessons; you eventually reach a point where silence can no longer be contained no matter the cost.
JELLYFISH AND A CLOWNFISH NAMED VOLTAIRE
E = mc3: THE NEED FOR NEGATIVE THEOLOGY
About Me
- Simply Jim
- Hearing impaired (tendency to appear dumb, dense, and/or aloof), orthodox atheist (believe faith more harmful than doubt), self depreciating sense of humor (confident/not to be confused with low self esteem), ribald sense of humor (satorical/mocking when sensing Condescension), confirmed bachelor (my fate if not my choosing), freakish inclination (unpredictable non-traditionalist opinions), free spirit (nor conformist bohemian) Believe others have said it better...... "Jim! You can be SO SMART, but you can be SO DUMB!" "Jim! You make such a MARTYR of yourself." "He's a nice guy, but...." "You must be from up NORTH!" "You're such a DICK!" "You CRAZY!" "Where the HELL you from?" "Don't QUITE know how to take your personality." My favorite, "You have this... NEED... to be....HONEST!"
No comments:
Post a Comment