 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next Last |
It is similar to one version of the Hippocratic oath, First of all, do no harm, or, Better do nothing than cause harm. Another way of describing it is that it favours inaction, at the risk of the negative consequences of doing nothing, over action, which risks negative consequences.
A major conceptual, and possibly legal, application of the principle is that it should shift the burden of proof in technology-related governmental or legal decision making
In the context of industrial development and rapid technological progress, actions by industries are (often) by default considered legal and ethical, unless a law exists against such actions, for example on the basis of expected negative consequences of those actions.
For the precautionary principle to be applied in practice in this type of situation, for example, against the use of genetically modified organisms, which a majority of Europeans believe could have many potentially negative consequences, it is generally necessary that citizens' groups have to debate the issue and put pressure on politicians and industry. So, in order to apply the precautionary principle, some groups (who fear the negative consequences of an action), need to take action themselves in order to constrain the industry to inaction.
In other words, the precautionary principle generally favours technological, industrial inaction by an industry, and socio-political action by groups of people concerned about the risks of physical action by the industry.
This principle is often invoked when the consequences are considered great enough that they may require significant economic changes, even when the uncertainties regarding likely consequences remain high. The phrase is often used by supporters of the green movement, and sometimes by politicians like the president of France, Jacques Chirac.
During the early part of the twentieth century, uranium was sometimes advertised in newspapers as a substance with medical benefits, even though today it is clear that the radioactivity of uranium is highly damaging to human health. If the precautionary principle had been used by newspaper owners or by government authorities, they would have taken the action of refusing to accept the advertisements, despite lacking certainty regarding the health danger of uranium.
The principle might also be called a rule of absention .
Critics of the principle argue that it is impractical, since every implementation of a technology carries some risk of negative consequences. Proponents counter that the principle is not an absolute rule, it is a conceptual tool to clarify arguments. Someone in a debate regarding a proposal can say, I oppose this proposal on the grounds of the precautionary principle, without necessarily invoking the precautionary principle for other proposals. However, such selectivity in its use is in itself criticised, because it leaves open the possibility that it will only be used in the context of technologies that advocates of the principle typically oppose - such as nuclear fission or genetically modified organisms.
Another standard criticism of the precautionary principle is that it is only applied to new technologies, not the existing technologies that the new techology might supersede. Proponents of the principle argue that this is a misapplication of the principle - existing as well as new technologies should be applied. It is however uncommon to use the precautionary principle as an argument for a new technology.
The precautionary principle, as stated, does not take into accounts the potential benefits of a technology, which may be substantial. Thus, it assumes zero opportunity cost, or that there is no cost associated to doing nothing.
Its use is often interpreted as protectionism (such as the case of beefBeef is meat obtained from a bovine. The better cuts are usually obtained from steers, as heifers tend to be kept for breeding. Older animals are used for beef when they are past their reproductive prime. The meat from older cows and bulls is generally to fed with hormoneNote that "Hormone" is the NATO reporting name for the Soviet/Russian Kamov Ka-25 military helicopter. A hormone (from Greek horman "to set in motion") is a chemical messenger from one cell (or group of cells) to another. All multicellular organisms (incls, dealt by the World Trade Organisation).
| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|