--- Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
[snip]
> What this discussion is showing me is that the precautionary principle
> can
> usefully be applied in some cases and not in others. The edict "do no
Actually, I disagree. The precautionary principle allows for no learning.
As I have pointed out you can select a prior distribution over the
relevant parameters so that you will be cautious. The difference is that
as new data and information comes available it will "move" the prior
around according to what the data is indicating. Thus, I think that
initially the similar results, policy wise, can be obtained via a Bayesian
decision framework, with the added benefit of having a learning mechanism
built in. You could argue that one could incorporate a learning mechanism
into the precautionary principle, but why go to all that trouble when you
already have a framework that does include it.
> harm"
> is a different proposition than "prove there is no harm." All organisms
Of course as the latter is completely unprovable and by following the
latter you get precisely the problems Jim Tantillo brings up. You end up
stuck in bed for fear of falling when you try to get up and possible
breaking your neck. Prove it wont happen. You can't. Even if you rely
on past results (i.e. every time you got up before you didn't fall and
break your neck) is not proof that you wont this time. As an person who
paid attention in their intorductory statistics course can tell you;
statistics can provide evidence but never prove anything.
> change their environments in ways that are toxic (to some degree) and
> harmful to other organisms. And, environments are hostile to most
> organisms
> to start with. So "harm" is not really the issue. It would seem that the
> ethical issues is the disruption of ecosystems (or systems) in such a
> way
> that the "harm" outweighs the benefit. Sort of a utilitarian analysis,
> but
> not really. I'm thinking specifically of GMO issues here. Is the
As the lists resident evil corporate sell out I also think this a
reasonable view.
> ecological
> benefit of no-till farming greater than the cost of possible
Now, I seem to recall a television ad by ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) that
they use no-till farming. I don't know to what extent.
> introduction of
> herbicide resistant genes into the environment? Just off-hand, and being
> as
> I was active in research about the problems of tillage for many years,
> I'd
> say "maybe so." I know enough about GM to know that herbicide resistance
> cannot be readily transferred by cross-pollination, or at least that is
> what
> the research says. So, in order to reduce tillage, the use of herbicide
> resistant crops seems a good idea to me.
>
> Now, getting to the general principle. Should we (society) insist on not
> using GMO products until "no harm" is shown? I just can't see it. I do
> see
> it with the use of herbicides/pesticides however. In one case GMO
> products
> have not, as a class, been shown to be potentially harmful, only some
> specific issues have been *thought* to be harmful. In the case of
> pesticides, they have, as a class, been shown to be potentially harmful.
>
> Maybe this is the precautionary principle in reverse. Maybe the ethical
> issue is showing that, as a general rule, GMO products are potentially
> harmful. Maybe the burden of proof is on the critics, not the producers.
Well if you want to be a stickler for logic, this is true. As I noted
proving a negative is impossible.
[snip]
Steve
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|