home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!biosci!PEARL.TUFTS.EDU!GELLMORE
- From: GELLMORE@PEARL.TUFTS.EDU (BIOHEAD)
- Newsgroups: bionet.plants
- Subject: Precautionary Principle
- Message-ID: <01GR803EU54G8X18PA@PEARL.TUFTS.EDU>
- Date: 16 Nov 92 18:03:00 GMT
- Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
- Distribution: bionet
- Lines: 29
-
- Delwiche broaches one of the two major themes to have emerged from
- the Earth Conference in Rio, and that is the Precautionary Principle.
- Paraphrased, it suggests that modern policy should be guided by the
- idea that if we have doubts about the outcomes of a policy, we should
- not implement it. (Versus the traditional principle of having to prove
- that a policy would be harmful before discontinuing it -the kind of
- thinking that compromised the stratospheric ozone layer, and who knows
- what else).
-
- On the other hand, what does "harmful" mean? Is it synonymous with "change"?
- Were the policies of the Green Revolution harmful in being powered by
- increased chemical fertilizers that degraded ground water supplies in those
- countries that could afford to buy them in the first place? Or would it
- have been less harmful to permit famines to go on unabated?
-
- How about the availability of antibiotics or vaccinations? Is it harmful
- to change population dynamics by artificially curbing mortality rates?
-
- In other words, what are "reasonable precautions". I think this falls under
- the heading of "Risk Assessment", a field currently in vogue. I think the
- bright spot in precautionary thinking, is that for the first time in
- my lifetime, the biosphere is being given very explicit consideration at
- the highest levels of decision making in the industrial world.
-
-
- George Ellmore
- Biology
- Tufts University
- Medford, MA 02155
-