We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
... the precautionary principle itself — a framework under which no one would venture outdoors at any time for work or play, as any number of horrors loom, all of which carry probabilities greater than zero. Even indoors, of course, the precautionary principle requires eternal vigilance, as Pravda in its glory days would have put it, as the roof might collapse at any time. I am surprised that the Left has not proposed a requirement that individuals wear hard hats when indoors, a diktat qualitatively identical to seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws and other such manifestations of nanny-statism.
The precautionary principle, accordingly, is a fundamentally totalitarian construct, as it leads inexorably toward a world in which government dictates which risks are acceptable.
A little risk is good, isn't it? It adds zest to life, the hot sauce. I would never go outdoors without my tin foil hat, however. Never know who might be listening in to my brain waves. Beware of the Thought Police.
The precautionary principle is logically self contradictory. You aren't supposed to take some action unless you can prove it does no harm. You can't prove a negative. Besides, before you invoke the precautionary principle shouldn't you prove it does no harm?
Self-contradictory? No. Shouldn't you prove it (?) does no harm? No. The precautionary principle has many forms, but in a word it says that the actions of one individual should not be to the detriment of others and it is the obligation of the former to PROVE that is the case. In the most rigid, totalitarian form so beloved by Progressives, cost/benefit analyses are precluded. Progressives love to apply the PP to individuals, but seldom if ever to governments. Heck, if their version of the PP were applied to the Feds, we would never have gotten Obamacare because they could never have shown it would "do no harm".
The Precautionary Principle is just a cover for Nanny-Statists. Sugar and trans-fats are bad; skydiving, skiing and basejumping--good. Sugar and transfats are for the poor and they must be controlled for their own good. Skydiving skiing and basejumping are fun for the elites and rich and therefore OK.