precautionary principle

back to index

description: risk management strategy emphasizing caution in scientific proceedings

144 results

Iain M Banks - The Culture complete works

by Iain M. Banks  · 5,095pp  · 1,429,463 words

… may be approaching the sort of distance the Culture ship can start to read our comms.” “This far out?” “–encrypted, aren’t… isn’t it?” “Precautionary principle applies, team. Officer?” The obvious, inter-ship comms traffic ceased. The Mistake Not… considered dedicating an effector to the lead vessel to monitor it internally

The Transhumanist Reader

by Max More and Natasha Vita-More  · 4 Mar 2013  · 798pp  · 240,182 words

Advantages Criticisms Related Work An Appeal Conclusion 26 The Proactionary Principle The Origin of the Proactionary Principle The Wisdom of Structure The Failure of the Precautionary Principle The Proactionary Principle Preamble to the Proactionary Principle Be Objective and Comprehensive Prioritize Natural and Human Risks Embrace Diverse Input Make Response and Restitution Proportionate

convinced” that life extension would be good for us – and leaves it at that. He thus insinuates, without quite saying, that we should adopt the precautionary principle with regard to life extension and avoid developing it because we are uncertain whether it will benefit mankind. But this is utterly without justification. In

supplies and box-office take for movies in their first days of release. Max More’s Proactionary Principle was designed as a replacement for the precautionary ­principle – an overly simple and biased rule for making decisions in the presence of significant risk, especially in the context of technological and environment issues. More

diagnoses severe shortcomings in the “precautionary principle” and offers in its place a more comprehensive, structured, and balanced decision-making and risk-assessment tool. In their 1994 essay, Mark Miller and co

– for both personal and group decisions. The Origin of the Proactionary Principle The Proactionary Principle emerged out of a critical discussion of the well-known precautionary principle that developed in Europe and has been used in the United States and elsewhere as a type of model for dealing with change. The

precautionary principle comes in many forms, but one well-known version was presented by Soren Holm and John Harris in Nature magazine in 1999 and states: When

needed. Extropy Institute created the Vital Progress (VP) Summit in 2004 to address this gap. The VP Summit participants saw the fatal weaknesses riddling the precautionary principle. Not least among these is its strong bias toward the status quo and against the technological progress so vital to the continued ­survival and wellbeing

all about guiding our decision-making by the smartest possible methods. The Proactionary Principle embodies the wisdom of structure. The precautionary principle does not. The Failure of the Precautionary Principle The version of the precautionary principle from the 1988 Wingspread Statement says: When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary

use of maximum intelligence and creativity. There’s a simple but telling way to appreciate the threat to progress and human wellbeing posed by the precautionary principle: Take a look back at the scientific and technological achievements of the past, then ask: “Would these advances have been sanctioned or prohibited by the

precautionary principle?” It is hard to think of a single significant advance that a literal application of this principle would not have blocked. Certainly, it would have

it guide our decisions?) It has to be applied selectively and inconsistently – and this makes it dangerous. This leads us to the paradox of the precautionary principle: The principle endangers us by ­trying too hard to safeguard us. It tries “too hard” by being obsessively preoccupied with a single value – safety. By

single-mindedly enforcing the tyranny of safety, this principle can only distract decision-makers from such an examination. Environmental and technological activism that wields the precautionary principle, whether explicitly or implicitly, raises clear threats of harm to human health and wellbeing. If we apply the principle to itself, we arrive at the

corollary to the Paradox of the Precautionary Principle: According to the principle, since the principle itself is dangerous, we should take precautionary measures to prevent the use of the

precautionary principle. The severity of the precautionary principle’s threat certainly does not imply that we should take no actions to safeguard human health or the environment. Nor does it imply that we

, ungrounded public perceptions and pressures from lobbyists, and ­popular but unreliable approaches to analysis and forecasting. The precautionary principle does nothing to ensure that decision makers use reliable, objective procedures. Distracts from greater threats. The precautionary principle distracts citizens and ­policymakers from established, major threats to health. The heavy emphasis on taking ­precautionary measures

, the principle is simple. Simplicity is appealing and can be a virtue – so long as it does not come at the expense of adequacy. The precautionary principle is too simple. In versions that mention “irreversible harm,” no account is given of irreversibility. A claim of irreversibility may be false and, even if

well as the potential benefits of a ­technology, both in the near term and as it might develop over time. Inappropriate burden of proof. The precautionary principle illegitimately shifts the burden of proof (“reverse onus”) by requiring innovators and producers to prove their innocence when anyone raises “threats of harm.” Activists enjoy

resources to answering those questions. To add to the fear-inducing power and chilling effect of the reverse onus, activists and ­regulators who invoke the precautionary principle invariably assume a worst-case scenario. By imagining the proposed technology or endeavor primarily in a worst-case scenario – while assuming that preventing action will

harm to humans and to the environment. Since unaltered nature is implicitly an absolute value in the principle, no tradeoffs are to be allowed. The precautionary principle is all about avoiding possible harm – and human-caused harm, and primarily harm to the ­environment – rather than respecting a wider set of values. This

liable for injuries we cause, with liability increasing along with foreseeable risk. By contrast, the precautionary principle bypasses liability and acts like a preliminary injunction – but without the involvement of a court. By doing this, the precautionary principle denies individuals and communities the freedom to make tradeoffs in the way recognized by common-law

approaches to risk and harm. No other values are admitted as a reason not to pursue extreme precaution. Asymmetrical. Environmental activists – heavy users of the precautionary principle – usually target human-caused effects while giving the destructive aspects of “nature” a free ride. Yet nature itself brings with it a risk of harms

such as infection, hunger, famine, and environmental disruption. The precautionary principle inherently favors nature and the status quo over humanity and progress, while routinely ignoring the potential benefits of technology and innovation. It fails to treat

precautionary regulations puts a kink in the rule of law. By giving regulators the power to insist on any degree of testing they choose, the precautionary principle opens up opportunities for corruption – undue influence, unfair targeting, and regulatory capture. It is the principle’s vagueness, inconsistency, and arbitrariness that appeal to regulators

powers and wielding them selectively. An increase in corruption and arbitrary regulatory power is further ensured by making precaution and prevention the default assumption. The precautionary principle cripples the technologies that can create our future because it prevents us from learning by experimenting. By halting activity, the principle reduces learning and reinforces

Ingo Potrykus, emeritus professor of Plant Sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and the inventor of Golden Rice, said: “The application of the precautionary principle in science is in itself basically anti-science. Science explores the unknown, and therefore can a priori not predict the outcome.” The Proactionary Principle Scientific

protecting. Certainly, we should be careful and thoughtful about how we progress, but we must never forget that advance is vital and not inevitable. The precautionary principle and its ilk have been wielded as a means of blocking technological and economic development in general. In many other cases, entrenched interests have used

strikes, massive tsunamis, and gamma ray bursters – but we should not be obsessive over them to the extent that we join the supporters of the precautionary principle. Stopping progress to eliminate risk is itself risky. If certain groups will try to develop superbugs, we had better develop even faster and more powerful

while being mindful of where we put our feet. A wise, balanced decision procedure will necessarily be more complex than the seductive simplicity of the precautionary principle. The exact wording of the Principle matters less than the ideas it embodies. The Principle is an inclusive, structured process for maximizing technological progress for

-england-patriots/messageboard/10/60827-falcons-say-signal-stealing-part-football.html. Powell, Russell (2010) “What’s the Harm? An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique of the Precautionary Principle.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20/2 (June), pp. 181–206. Rawls, John (1999) A Theory of Justice, rev. edn. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of

; version 1.2 : http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.htm; the most recent version in this volume) as an alternative to the unbalanced strictures of the Precautionary Principle. Summit keynotes included, in alphabetical order: Ronald Bailey, Aubrey de Grey, Robert A. Freitas, Raymond Kurzweil, Marvin Minsky, Max More, Christine Peterson, Michael D. Shapiro

OpenCog Parfit, Derek Pearce, David perception personhood Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni plasticity platform policy Popper, Frank Popper, Karl post-biological posthuman posthuman condition posthumanism postmodernism precautionary principle Primo Posthuman principles Prisco, Giulio Proactionary Principle prosthetic rationalism regenerative medicine religion relinquishment repugnance reputation-based filtering respirocyte rights risk robot robotics Rose, Michael Rothblatt

Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto

by Stewart Brand  · 15 Mar 2009  · 422pp  · 113,525 words

destroying the balance of nature, with unacceptable risks to human health and natural ecology. They talked a great deal about a rule called the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle says that if some course of action carries even a remote chance of irreparable damage to the ecology, then you shouldn’t do it, no

how great the possible advantages of the action may be. You are not allowed to balance costs against benefits when deciding what to do. The Precautionary Principle gives the Europeans a firm philosophical basis for saying no to GM food. In response, the Africans pointed out that the

Precautionary Principle can just as well be used as a philosophical basis for saying yes. The growing population and general impoverishment of Africa are already causing irreparable

Europe from America and other parts of the world in regard to GE crops is the seriousness with which Europeans take what is called the precautionary principle. It was invoked in the Davos debate; it was invoked in the Zambia debacle; and it has had regulatory force in the European Union since

1992 and in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, governing international movement of GE organisms, since 2000. As Robert Paarlberg points out, “Europe’s precautionary principle had honorable origins. It first emerged in the context of a serious and well-documented environmental harm in Germany known as forest death. The German

in the North Sea, another documented harm.” But as time went by, evidence of harm disappeared as a precautionary principle trigger, and science was explicitly devalued. There are a number of versions of the precautionary principle. The clearest and most often cited came out of a meeting of environmentalists in Wisconsin in 1998. Called

stages while the preponderance and trend of relevant scientific evidence becomes established, and then the measures should respond to that evidence.” As Dyson noted, the precautionary principle, as currently applied, is deliberately one-sided, a rejection of what is called risk balancing. The convener of the Wingspread gathering, Carolyn Raffensperger, is widely

assessment embodies the idea that we can measure and manage or control risk and harm—and we can decide that some risk is acceptable. The Precautionary Principle is a very different idea that says that as an ethical matter, we are going to prevent all the harm we can.” Net-benefit analysis

is ruled out. One consequence of the precautionary principle is that, in practice, it can be self-canceling. It says to wait for the results of further research, but it declares that the research

is too dangerous to do. Under the banner of the precautionary principle, activists burn the fields where GE research is going on and threaten the researchers. “All technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent,” said Dave

between good and bad, and they’re easy to recognize and to expand on or correct, as needed. If cellphones had been subject to the precautionary principle, the arguments against them would have included: They’ll microwave your brain; they’ll exacerbate the Digital Divide; they’ll lead to the corporate takeover

a global perspective: “Even if one society loses its nerve, there’ll be new entrants who can take up the torch and push ahead.” • The precautionary principle has been so widely recognized as a barrier to progress that, according to England’s Prospect magazine, in 2006, the House of Commons select committee

(Nuffield Council on Bioethics), the reversibility principle (Jamais Cascio), and the anti-catastrophe principle—that one from an excellent book, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), by behavioral economist Cass Sunstein, who now heads Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I would not replace the

precautionary principle. Its name and founding idea are too good to lose. But I would shift its bias away from inaction and toward action with a supplement—

the vigilance principle, whose entire text is: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” The precautionary principle by itself seeks strictly to stop or slow new things, even in the face of urgent need. Precaution plus vigilance would seek to move quickly

survey of synthetic biology titled “Extreme Genetic Engineering.” It is well researched, fair, inclusive, and only moderately alarmist. It does conclude: “In keeping with the Precautionary Principle, ETC Group asserts that—at a minimum—there must be an immediate ban on environmental release of de novo synthetic organisms until wide societal debate

as abbreviation for gene transfer as intellectual property issue and mammoths and medicine and opposition to organic farming and pest control and plant toxicity and precautionary principle and precision of recombinant DNA research and religion and second generation of stories related to synthetic biology and violence and Genetic Glass Ceilings (Gressel) genetic

America Population Bomb, The (Ehrlich) population growth positive feedback potatoes Potrykus, Ingo poverty Power to Save the World (Cravens) Prahalad, C. K. prairies Pratchett, Terry precautionary principle Primeiro Comando da Capital Prinn, Ronald Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Program for the Human Environment Progress in Nuclear Energy Prospect ProVitaMinRice

What Technology Wants

by Kevin Kelly  · 14 Jul 2010  · 476pp  · 132,042 words

. The obvious remedy for this dilemma is to expect the worst. That’s the result of a commonly used approach to new technologies called the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle was first crafted at the 1992 Earth Summit as part of the Rio Declaration. In its original form it advised that a “lack of

harm should be prohibited unless the proponent of the activity shows that it presents no appreciable risk of harm.” One version or another of the Precautionary Principle informs legislation in the European Union (it is included in the Maastricht Treaty) and appears in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The

cities such as Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco. It is a favorite standard for bioethicists and critics of rapid technological adoption. All versions of the Precautionary Principle hold this axiom in common: A technology must be shown to do no harm before it is embraced. It must be proven to be safe

. On the surface, this approach seems reasonable and prudent. Harm must be anticipated and preempted. Better safe than sorry. Unfortunately, the Precautionary Principle works better in theory than in practice. “The precautionary principle is very, very good for one thing—stopping technological progress,” says philosopher and consultant Max More. Cass R. Sunstein, who devoted

a book to debunking the principle, says, “We must challenge the Precautionary Principle not because it leads in bad directions, but because read for all it is worth, it leads in no direction at all.” Every good produces

harm somewhere, so by the strict logic of an absolute Precautionary Principle no technologies would be permitted. Even a more liberal version would not permit new technologies in a timely manner. Whatever the theory, as a practical

to fund them. A treaty signed in 1991 by 91 countries and the EU agreed to phase out DDT altogether. They were relying on the precautionary principle: DDT was probably bad; better safe than sorry. In fact DDT had never been shown to hurt humans, and the environmental harm from the miniscule

of asbestos greatly increases its danger compared to the low risk of letting it remain in place in buildings. The Precautionary Principle is oblivious to the notion of substitute risks. In general the Precautionary Principle is biased against anything new. Many established technologies and “natural” processes have unexamined faults as great as those of

any new technology. But the Precautionary Principle establishes a drastically elevated threshold for things that are new. In effect it grandfathers in the risks of the old, or the “natural.” A few

raised without the shield of pesticides generate more of their own natural pesticides to combat insects, but these indigenous toxins are not subject to the Precautionary Principle because they aren’t “new.” The risks of new plastic water pipes are not compared with the risks of old metal pipes. The risks of

be to immediately try it out. And to keep trying it out, and testing it, as long as it exists. In fact, contrary to the Precautionary Principle, a technology can never be declared “proven safe.” It must be continuously tested with constant vigilance since it is constantly being reengineered by users and

. The principle of constant engagement is called the Proactionary Principle. Because it emphasizes provisional assessment and constant correction, it is a deliberate counterapproach to the Precautionary Principle. This framework was first articulated by Max More, radical transhumanist, in 2004. More began with ten guidelines, but I have reduced his ten principles to

to relinquish GRIN technologies that could potentially be weaponized, to give them up the way we gave up biological weapons. Under the guidance of the Precautionary Principle, the Canadian watchdog group ETC called for a moratorium on all nanotechnological research. The German equivalent of the EPA demanded a ban on products containing

minimal lifestyle. Because Brende comes from a technological background, he anticipates your questions. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cass Sunstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Case studies on the faults of the Precautionary Principle and a suggested framework for an alternative approach. Whole Earth Discipline. Stewart Brand. New York: Viking, 2009. Many

.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163. 247 such as Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco: Lawrence A. Kogan. (2008) “The Extra-WTO Precautionary Principle: One European ‘Fashion’ Export the United States Can Do Without.” Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, 17 (2). p. 497. http://www.itssd.org/Kogan

%2017%5B1%5D.2.pdf. 247 “it leads in no direction at all”: Cass Sunstein. (2005) Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 14. 248 DDT around the insides of homes: Lawrence Kogan. (2004) “‘Enlightened’ Environmentalism or Disguised Protectionism? Assessing the Impact of

. emergence energy density of heat death vs. matter and nuclear production of requirements for sustainable Engelbart, Doug England entropy environmental issues atmospheric carbon dams deforestation Precautionary Principle and environments niche Europe fertility rates in feudalism in European Union evocative objects evolution accumulated genetic information in adaptation in anachronisms in archetypal forms in

population growth food production for of Sapiens of hunter-gatherers Malthusian limits of negative negative, future scenarios of world see also fertility rates Postman, Neil Precautionary Principle predator rhythm Priceline Priestley, Joseph printing Proactionary Principle Process Theology progress critical views of emotional unease produced by energy production in environmental costs of evolutionary

abuses in acceleration and amplification and appropriate remedies for collective choice and conviviality vs. initially uncertain predictability in large-scale accidents as new vs. old Precautionary Principle for Proactionary Principle for prohibition as response to risks of second-order effects in self-replicating technology in unintended consequences in vigilance principle for worst

Green Philosophy: How to Think Seriously About the Planet

by Roger Scruton  · 30 Apr 2014  · 426pp  · 118,913 words

-war Germany, and was invoked later in the sixties as the blanket justification for state planning. Reissued in the seventies under the name of the Precautionary Principle, it is now being advocated at every level of European politics as a guide to regulation, legislation and the use of scientific research. Addressing the

Society in 2002, British prime minister Tony Blair told the assembled body of distinguished scientists that ‘responsible science and responsible policy-making operate on the Precautionary Principle’. Yet nobody seems to know what the Principle says. Does it tell us to take no risks? Then surely it is merely irrational, since everything

we need a clear statement of what it says and clear grounds for believing it. A footnote to the 1982 Stockholm environmental conference recommended the Precautionary Principle as the acceptable approach to scientific innovation – but did nothing to define it. Thereafter the Principle was repeatedly mentioned in European edicts, as authority for

a bureaucrat judges, on whatever grounds, to have a possible cost attached to it. Although there is little or no agreement as to what the Precautionary Principle says, it has now become a doctrine of European law. A recent decision of the European Court of Justice, having invoked the

Precautionary Principle, concluded that the government of Italy is justified in preventing the sale of genetically modified food on the basis that ‘no human technology should be

be thrown out by the people who have to bear the burden of their edicts, the regulative machine is now running out of control. The Precautionary Principle justifies everything that the bureaucrats do, since they need nothing more than ‘preliminary’ scientific evaluation, giving ‘grounds for concern’ that the ‘potential’ effects ‘may’ be

be carcinogenic. His research has never been confirmed by peer review and was rejected by the European Commission’s own scientific committee.126 However, the Precautionary Principle got to work on this non-evidence and converted it at once into conclusive grounds for panic. For what the Principle really says, when examined

in this product will suffer. And for the activists that result is a good in itself. Conversely manufacturers of safety devices constantly refer to the Precautionary Principle when lobbying for regulation that will lead to guaranteed sales throughout the European Union. Even if what it says remains obscure, the

Precautionary Principle clearly presents an obstacle to innovation and experiment, even in those circumstances (like ours, now, confronting unprecedented problems) where nothing is more needed than innovation

relative benefits and costs. This mode of reasoning is instinctive to us and has ensured our extraordinary success as a species. The effect of the Precautionary Principle is to isolate each risk as though it were entirely independent of every other. Risks, according to the Principle, come single-wrapped, and each demands

Principle makes explicit the main defect of top-down regulation. Even when there is no explicit forbidding of risk, of the kind ventured by the Precautionary Principle, bureaucracies consider risks one by one, and strive to reduce each to zero, regardless of the cost. Normally you can reduce one risk to zero

risks, but choosing between them, and continuously adjusting in the face of new and unanticipated dangers. Although the Eurocrats have made something they call the Precautionary Principle into the foundation of their legislative programme, we should not think that the invocation of the Principle is confined to Europe. Environmental NGOs have made

only irrational responses are now available, so that purely hypothetical disasters eclipse all attempts to assess their real probability. Nor should we assume that the Precautionary Principle is effective only where it has entered the official culture, as in Germany. American legislators are unlikely to invoke the Principle, since they recognize the

with such longing and wonder in children’s classics like Huckleberry Finn and Swallows and Amazons. When assessing arguments proffered in the name of the Precautionary Principle, therefore, we should recognize that it is one aspect of a risk-denying and risk-averting culture. American litigation and European regulation both have the

on their taxes that the whole structure of institutionalized timorousness is built. This does not mean that we should dismiss the anxieties to which the Precautionary Principle is proposed as a solution. Rather we should make a clear effort to identify those anxieties, to state them precisely, and to see whether regulation

Costanza, an economist now at the University of Vermont, who has attempted to put something precise in place of the Precautionary Principle.138 The second source of anxiety to which the Precautionary Principle has been put forward as a cure is that concerning sinks and residues. The problem here is a special case of

genetically modified crops, and is one cause of the movement for organic farming. There is nothing irrational in these fears; the problem is that the Precautionary Principle does nothing to answer them. By forbidding everything it permits everything, and leaves us without clear instructions as to what we should do, to ensure

disaster, strict precaution renders us powerless to deal with disaster when it comes. I come now to the third kind of anxiety to which the Precautionary Principle is proposed as a solution. In reasoning about risk, many thinkers wish to make a distinction between those things that can, and those that cannot

. The philosopher David Wiggins, for example, who has made the concept of need central to his account of moral thinking, introduces a version of the Precautionary Principle in the words of Pushkin’s Herman (in The Queen of Spades): ‘Cards interest me very much; but I am not in a position to

them in shadow. There is something plausible in those ideas, and I shall return to them in later chapters. But they do nothing for the Precautionary Principle as it is propounded by its normal advocates. Distinguishing needs from desires is simply one part of the process of weighing reasons. And we should

to lift our responsibilities in the face of it is, therefore, one that threatens a primary human need. Meanwhile, in all its putative forms, the Precautionary Principle acts as a brake on the kind of research that we need to undertake, if we are to manage our growing environmental problems. In the

circumstances in which we now find ourselves, there can be no riskier policy. If we are to apply the Precautionary Principle at all, therefore, we should apply it to itself. And the answer will be ‘Don’t!’ An important issue emerges from our discussion. Environmental problems

can and what cannot be changed, the likelihood of adverse and beneficial consequences, and the agencies best suited to manage risk on our behalf. The Precautionary Principle assumes that risk management concerns the environment only. From that assumption another is held to follow, namely that since the environment is everyone’s concern

to the people their stolen peace of mind. This approach seems to me just as irrational as those typically advanced in the name of the Precautionary Principle. Estimating risk is an art that rational beings acquire by recognizing the indefinitely many ways in which safety in one area may spell danger in

fall on unknown others and not on the person who is supposedly managing them, we are apt to take refuge in absolute rules like the Precautionary Principle. And such rules are insensitive to the risk involved in forbidding risk. Moreover, we should question the assumption that risks can be managed only by

Patch are both disputed: see Wikipedia article. 86 Like other measures discussed at the Rio meeting, the Convention on Biodiversity incorporated a version of the Precautionary Principle, the adverse effects of which I discuss in Chapter 4. 87 See Appendix I: Global Justice. 88 See Hulme, op. cit. 89 Mary Douglas and

Simon Fairlie’s website, www.tlio.org.uk, and his book, Low Impact Development cited in n.96, p. 80. 122 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, drafted and finalized at a conference at the Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, 23–25 January 1998, www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html

. 123 Commission of the European Communities, ‘Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle’, Brussels, 2.2.2000, COM (2000) 1 final. 124 ECJ, 9 September 2003, reported in Official Journal of the European Union, C 264, 01.11

.2003, p. 10. 125 See also, for further illustrations, Gary E. Marchant and Kenneth L. Mossman, Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Courts, Washington DC, 2004. 126 See Bill Durodié, ‘Plastic Panics: European Risk Regulation in the Aftermath of BSE’, in Julian Morris, ed

., Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Oxford, 2000. 127 The story is related of Franklin D. Roosevelt among others, and is surely apocryphal. Chris DeMuth informs me that Thomas Schelling summarizes

the Precautionary Principle in another way: ‘Don’t do anything for the first time!’ 128 According to data contained in a Royal Society Report of 2002, and later

from mistakes is one part of rationality; another part is learning to assess the cost of mistakes. If there is an acceptable version of the Precautionary Principle, therefore, it should be rewritten as ACE – assess the cost of error. So argues John Lucas in a little-known but important contribution to this

Book Co., 2001. Mannison, Don, et al., Environmental Philosophy, Canberra, Australian National University, 1980. Marchant, Gary E., and Mossman, Kenneth L., Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts, Washington DC, AEI Press, 2004. Marcuse, Herbert, One-Dimensional Man, London, Sphere Books, 1964. Marriott, Oliver, Property Boom, 2nd ed

, 2004. Montford, Andrew, The Hockey Stick Illusion, London, Stacey International, 2010. Morano, Marc, Climate Depot, http://climatedepot.com. Morris, Julian, ed., Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000. Morrow, David R., Kopp, Robert E., and Oppenheimer, Michael, ‘Towards Ethical Norms and Institutions for Climate Engineering Research’, Environmental Research Letters

population growth, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6 Portugal, ref1 practical reason, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5, ref6, ref7, ref8, ref9 Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, ref1 Precautionary Principle, ref1n, ref2 preference orderings, ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5 Pretty, Jules, ref1n, ref2 Pride of Derby case, ref1 Priest, George L., ref1n Prisoner’s Dilemma

Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety

by Marion Nestle  · 1 Jan 2010  · 736pp  · 147,021 words

these factors—and continues to be surprised by the public’s response of outrage—it is worth asking just whose behavior is irrational.”30 The Precautionary Principle: Look Before You Leap The differences in the two approaches to food safety risk have an additional political dimension. They imply different expectations for the

room for subjective opinion and judgment. An alternative approach is one that has come to be known as the principle of precautionary action, or the “precautionary principle.” This principle, which emerged in Europe as a guideline for environmental protection, can be summarized as “look before you leap,” meaning test the products first

, industry and organizations with the need to reduce the risk of adverse effects to the environment or to health. . . . Whether or not to invoke the Precautionary Principle is a decision exercised where scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are indications that the possible effects on the environment or

decision, a function of the risk level that is “acceptable” to the society on which the risk is imposed.31 In practice, invocation of the precautionary principle can be used to require companies to demonstrate that foods are safe before they are marketed. As we have seen, the EPA followed this principle

such precautions, the European Union banned American and Canadian beef from cattle treated with growth hormones and delayed introduction of genetically modified crops. Thus, the precautionary principle has implications for international trade as well as domestic food policy and has become a major rallying point for advocates who favor environmental protection or

January 1998, for example, a group of such advocates met in Wingspread, Wisconsin, to formulate what is now known as the Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships

of the activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of protection.”33 As a result of such advocacy, international agreements increasingly incorporate the precautionary principle in policy statements. For example, European and United States experts on food biotechnology issued a joint statement in 2000 saying, “When substantive uncertainties prevent accurate

their supporters argue that no matter what they do, they will never be able to satisfy opponents. Instead, they argue, the true purpose of the precautionary principle is to inhibit business. Elizabeth Whelan, who directs the industry-sponsored American Council on Science and Health, explains why the principle so infuriates her and

other science-based assessors of food safety risks: “As a corollary to the Precautionary Principle, consumer activists now insist that if the public perceives something as risky, that perception should carry the day regardless of whether there truly is a

but that nevertheless should be taken seriously and evaluated in advance—before the foods are grown extensively and enter the food supply. They invoke the precautionary principle (discussed in the introduction). As support for the need for precaution, they cite the examples to which we now turn. These examples explain why safety

for human health they could be marketed: plant first, then deal with problems. As discussed earlier, this approach differs from the method required by the precautionary principle: demonstrate safety before planting. The science-based approach also excluded debate about the societal issues summarized in table 2 (page 17). The regulatory agencies interpreted

regulations. Regulations, from this perspective, are costly and complicated barriers to selling products on international markets. If, for example, a country decides to invoke the precautionary principle and require premarket testing and labeling of genetically modified foods, it could refuse to buy U.S. crops that were not segregated and labeled. It

strategic decision making: implications for emerging technologies. Ambio (Sweden) 1999;28:569–574. 31. Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels, February 2, 2000, at http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6615&URL_DO=DO_PRINT PAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html

. 32. Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. Science and the precautionary principle. Science 2000;288:979–981. Groth E. Science, Precaution and Food Safety: How Can We Do Better? (discussion paper for the US Codex Delegation), February

2000, at www.consumersunion.org/food/codexcpi200.htm. 33. Montague P. The precautionary principle. Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly, 586, February 19, 1998, at www.seismo.unr.edu/htdocs/academic/ ANDERSON/Papers/Precaution/Montague_PrecautionaryPrinciple.pdf. 34. The EU

://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/00/1484&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. 35. Whelan EM. Our “stolen future” and the precautionary principle. Priorities for Health 1996;8(3), at www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.712/health issue_detail.asp. Also see: Paarlberg RL. The Politics of Precaution

irradiation, 124 legal proceedings initiated by, 16, 76, 108 and meat processing, 71, 76, 83 and political relations, 1–2, 11, 12, 16, 275 and precautionary principle, 24 Consumer Reports, 37, 124, 293 Consumers education of, 66, 76, 77, 90, 91, 112, 113, 117–20, 119, 129 responsibility shifted to, 30, 50

, 194, 220–21, 232, 235, 236, 241, 246–48 and bioterrorism, 272 and foodborne microbes, 29, 33, 127 and globalization, 236 and irradiation, 122 and precautionary principle, 23–24 and value-based approach, 17, 21, 22 Drugs, 196–97 See also Antibiotics; Growth hormones; Pharmaceutical industry Druker, Steven, 244 Drying, bacterial resistance

resistance to government regulation, 63, 65, 72, 79, 107, 120 responsibility denied by, 63, 75, 110 and science-based approach, 63 Poverty, 142, 162, 271 Precautionary principle, 22–24, 185, 194, 236 Preservation methods, 35, 43, 114 Preservatives, 34 President’s Council on Food Safety, 133–34 Preventive measures animal antibiotics as

resistance to, 46, 47 politics of, 1–2, 11, 12, 16, 60, 80, 92, 94, 95, 96, 107, 133, 142, 191, 197, 216, 219 and precautionary principle, 22–23 public distrust of, 22, 74, 169 and recall authority, 97, 99–102, 269, 273 and reorganization of food safety authority, 113, 130–37

, 67–68 and mad cow disease, 254 and National Food Safety Initiative, 133 politics of, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 30, 215, 221 and precautionary principle, 22–24, 185, 194 and raw food, 30 science-based approach to, 1, 16–20, 24, 25, 27, 140, 141, 145, 170, 171, 177–79

The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World

by Anu Bradford  · 14 Sep 2020  · 696pp  · 184,001 words

agencies. In contrast, while scientific evidence remains central to regulating risk in the EU,118 it is tempered by the EU-wide adoption of the “precautionary principle.” This principle dictates that precautionary regulatory action is proper even in the absence of an absolute, quantifiable certainty of the risk, as long as there

are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects may be inconsistent with the chosen level of protection.119 The precautionary principle emanates from Swedish and German environmental law dating back to the 1960s,120 and the Maastricht Treaty, which officially embraced the principle at the EU

level in 1992,121 largely reflecting Germany’s effort to “Germanize” European environmental policy.122 The additional impetus for the precautionary principle came from various food safety and environmental scandals that made the general public eager to preempt regulatory risks with precautionary regulation. As the public support

for the precautionary principle grew, all institutions were eager to capitalize on it and endorse precaution to earn greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public.123 The Commission

has sought to curtail the excessive reliance on the precautionary principle by member states as a pretext for limiting trade from other member states by emphasizing the importance of science as a foundation for risk regulation

faced with a “level of risk that the public considers appropriate,”125 acknowledging citizens’ fears as a legitimate basis for regulatory intervention. In practice, the precautionary principle has become a central component of the EU’s regulatory decision-making. It has been systematically incorporated into key policy documents,126 providing a foundation

have also been consistent in endorsing the principle128 by granting the Commission wide discretion to act based on precaution.129 The ECJ even elevated the precautionary principle to the status of a “general principle” of EU law in its Artegodan judgment,130 further demonstrating the Court’s strong approval of precautionary standards

—which petitioned for, and attained, membership alongside its member states—has successfully defended a number of controversial policy positions, such as the role of the precautionary principle in Codex decision-making.37 The EU’s extensive influence at Codex can be at least partially attributed to the EU’s long experience in

the European Food Safety Authority about the risks involved in the use of glyphosate. Second, it cited the EU’s General Court when analyzing the precautionary principle in the matter.65 In another case concerning a controversy on GMOs, the CCC stated that “[t]he European Union has taken a clear position

, and spreading of GMOs, unless they are proven safe with scientific certainty.41 The EU’s regulatory regime is based on pre-market approval, the precautionary principle, and post-market control. In contrast, the United States regards GMO products as substantially similar to products made using traditional production methods and allows them

authority to restrict the use of substances that pose an “unacceptable” risk to human health or the environment.161 REACH is also guided by the “precautionary principle,” which justifies regulatory intervention in the case of scientific uncertainty, making the regulation applicable to an even wider range of chemicals.162 Further contributing to

new chemicals regulation, supported by Austria, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands.176 A number of environmental, health, and consumer advocacy NGOs voiced support for the precautionary principle.177 NGOs also called for full risk identification, public information sharing, and a phaseout process for harmful chemicals.178 The NGOs launched a “Chemical Awareness

the purview of the regulation.185 The industry lobby also argued for self-regulation or more voluntary measures and took a firm stand against the precautionary principle, citing high costs and negative impacts on competition and employment.186 However, as it became evident that some kind of regulatory scheme would be adopted

. H&M, a Swedish fashion retailer with operations in many non-EU countries,213 ensures compliance with REACH and other regulations by “apply[ing] the precautionary principle” and developing its chemical restrictions “based on the highest legal standard in any of [its] sales countries.”214 The company’s sustainability commitment, which any

level.4 The EU’s regulatory capacity was further enhanced in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which recognized the importance of “sustainable growth” and added the “precautionary principle” to guide decision-making in environmental matters. The Maastricht Treaty also acknowledged for the first time the EU’s role in promoting measures multilaterally outside

size and strong regulatory mandate, and further strengthened by the recognition of environmental protection as a constitutional obligation for the EU institutions. In addition, the “precautionary principle”—which allows for regulatory intervention even in the presence of uncertainty regarding the harm—features prominently in the EU’s environmental policy making, further contributing

and services. In addition, some European businesses view the high regulatory standards as unsustainable for the European economy. They argue that excessive reliance on the precautionary principle may slow economic growth and innovation,1 pricing EU firms out of critical export markets.2 An illustrative example comes from the REACH regulation, discussed

75, at 4. 116.See Vogel, Politics, supra note 75, at 261–66. 117.See id. at 259. 118.See, e.g., Communication on the Precautionary Principle, at ¶ 1, COM (2000) 1 final (Feb. 2, 2000). 119.See, e.g., id.; see also Sarah Harrell, Beyond “REACH”?: An Analysis of the European

Animal Health SA v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. II-3318, ¶ 142. 120.Ragnar E. Löfstedt, The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Analysis, 28 J. Risk & Uncertainty 237, 243–44 (2004). 121.Maastricht Treaty: Treaty on European Union, art. 1, 7 February 1992, 1992

in the United States and Europe 377, 414 (Jonathan Wiener et al. eds., 2011). 124.Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1 final (Feb. 2, 2000); The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings 5 (Harremoes et al. eds., 2013). 125.See Vogel, Politics, supra note

, 566 (2003). 127.See Vogel, Politics, supra note 75, at 271. 128.See Kenisha Garnett & David Parsons, Multi-Case Review of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in European Union Law and Case Law, 37 Risk Analysis 502, 511 (2017). 129.See, e.g., Case T-70/99, Alpharma v. Council, 2002

legislation, major, 207 “Limits to Growth,” 210 Maastricht Treaty, 35 multilateralism and global treaties, 207 NGOs, 211–12 originating countries, 10–11 political economy, 210 precautionary principle, 207–8 public opinion, 211 purpose, 19 Sustainable Fishing Partnership Agreements, 71–72 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, 208–9, 222 environment regulations and

court and judicial integration, 36 Cassis de Dijon, 10 as competence-maximizer, 17 Costa/Enel, 75–76 Google Spain v. Mario Costeja, 75, 134–35 precautionary principle and Artegodan, 45 pro-integration tendencies, 17, 18 right to be forgotten, 134–35, 166–67, 343n291 United Brands, 115, 117 Van Gend & Loos, 75

food producers, 245 on hunger and poverty, 247 legislation, major, 174–75 McDonalds, EU, 184, 348–49n90 non-divisibility, 182–84 political economy, 176–79 precautionary principle, 45 technical non-divisibility, 58 as trade protectionism, 241 WTO ruling, 260, 379n163 Google comparison shopping rulings, 62–63 competition investigations, 104 copycat litigation, 125

EU, by foreign firms, 254–56 GDPR, 255 REACH, 255 success, lack of, 255–56 Maastricht Treaty environmental protections, 207–8 Parliament empowerment from, 35 precautionary principle, 45 Social Protocol, 11–12 voting since, on environmental policy, 35 mad cow disease, 37–38, 172 Majone, Giandomenico, 16, 36 majority, qualified, 13–14

, 210 false negatives and false positives, 39, 43, 102 food safety, 175 GMOs, 176–79 hate speech online, 159 market competition, 102 Pollack, Mark, 17 precautionary principle, 207–8 environment, 207–8 GMO regulation, 45 Maastricht Treaty, 45 REACH, 45 as unsustainable, 236–37 precautionary risk culture, 37–38 precaution tendency, 38

, 256 impact, global, 193 as imperialism, 248–49 legislation, major, 193 lobbying, by foreign firms, 255 objectives, key, 19 policy, 93–94 political economy, 194 precautionary principle, 45 recruiting even-handedness, 144 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RFFI), 226–27 Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals. See REACH regulations. See also specific

The Science of Fear: How the Culture of Fear Manipulates Your Brain

by Daniel Gardner  · 23 Jun 2009  · 542pp  · 132,010 words

caution by banning or restricting suspected chemicals. Better safe than sorry, after all. This attitude has been enshrined in various laws and regulations as the precautionary principle. There are many definitions of that principle, but one of the most influential comes from Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

need “full scientific certainty,” how much evidence should we have before we act? And this is only one of more than twenty definitions of the precautionary principle floating about in regulations and laws. Many are quite different and some are contradictory on certain points. As a result, there is a vast and

growing academic literature grappling with what exactly “precaution” means and how it should be implemented. Politicians and activists like to talk about the precautionary principle as if it were a simple and sensible direction to err on the side of caution. But there’s nothing simple about it. Nor is

it all that sensible. As law professor Cass Sunstein argues in Laws of Fear, the precautionary principle is more a feel-good sentiment than a principle that offers real guidance about regulating risks. Risks are everywhere, he notes, so we often face

a risk in acting and a risk in not acting— and in these situations, the precautionary principle is no help. Consider chlorine. Treat drinking water with it and it creates by-products that have been shown to cause cancer in lab animals

the cancer risk of people who drink the water. There’s even some epidemiological evidence that suggests the risk is more than hypothetical. So the precautionary principle would suggest we stop putting chlorine in drinking water. But what happens if we do that? “If you take the chlorine out of the drinking

all but wiped it out in the developed world early in the twentieth century. So, presumably, the precautionary principle would say we must treat drinking water with chlorine. “Because risks are on all sides, the Precautionary Principle forbids action, inaction, and everything in between, ” writes Sunstein. It is “paralyzing; it forbids the very steps

malaria-fighting tool. The truth about DDT is that the questions about how to deal with it were, and are, complex. So what does the precautionary principle tell us about this most reviled of chemicals? Well, once typhus and malaria have been removed from the equation, it would probably come down on

fight malaria in Africa, it carries certain risks. And there are risks to not using it. So how do we decide? The precautionary principle is no help. “Why, then, is the Precautionary Principle widely thought to give guidance? ” asks Cass Sunstein. The answer is simple: We pay close attention to some risks while ignoring

fruits and vegetables leading to an increase in cancer. It also requires evidence. We may not want to wait for conclusive scientific proof—as the precautionary principle suggests—but we must demand much more than speculation. Rational risk regulation is a slow, careful, and thoughtful examination of the dangers and costs in

as if it were a certainty.” In effect, if not in name, Cheney was invoking the precautionary principle. This is a contradiction that goes to the heart of the politics of risk. On the left, the precautionary principle is revered. It is enshrined in European Union law. Environmentalists are always talking about it. But

the right loathes it. In fact, the Bush administration is openly hostile to the European Union’s attempts to apply the precautionary principle in health and environmental regulations. In May 2003, shortly after the United States had invaded Iraq on better-safe-than-sorry grounds, John Graham, the

White House’s top official in charge of vetting regulations, told the New York Times that the Bush administration considers the precautionary principle “to be a mythical concept, perhaps like a unicorn.” At the same time, the left—especially the left in Europe—scoffed when George W. Bush

would be created by an invasion—exactly the same sort of arguments the Bush administration and other conservatives level when environmentalists or Europeans cite the precautionary principle as grounds for, say, banning chemicals or taking action on climate change. How selective people can be about “precaution” has never been so starkly illustrated

Safety Regulations 1988) estimated that in nine years the regulation saved as many as 1,800 lives and prevented 5,700 injuries. So does the precautionary principle say the use of these chemicals should be banned or made mandatory? 240: “. . . there would be little left to eat.” The 1996 report was the

Arkansas and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee’s description of “Islamofascism” as “the greatest threat this country’s ever faced.” 265: “. . . Cheney was invoking the precautionary principle.” For a fuller discussion, see Jessica Stern and Jonathan Wiener, “Precaution Against Terrorism, ” a paper issued by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at

Preference, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006. Slovic, Paul, The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, London, UK, 2000. Sunstein, Cass R., Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005. Sunstein, Cass R., Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002. Allen, Arthur

. Bush, George W. cancer and age breast cancer and chemical exposure and the Good-Bad Rule- and marketing of fear and media coverage and the precautionary principle and radon rates of skin cancer statistics on cannabis Carson, Johnny Carson, Rachel Carter, Jimmy Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Chapman, Clark Chapman, Jessica chemicals

consensus and historical trends and marketing fear political advertising and risk management and the road rage panic and terrorism Posner, Richard Pound, Dick Powell, Colin precautionary principle Preston, Richard probability blindness psychology Quick, Jonathan radon gas RAND-MIPT terrorism database Rather, Dan Reagan, Ronald Red Brigades Rees, Martin Reiner, Robert Remm, Larry

Chaos Kings: How Wall Street Traders Make Billions in the New Age of Crisis

by Scott Patterson  · 5 Jun 2023  · 289pp  · 95,046 words

“as if the entire world became a huge room with narrow exits and people rushing to the same doors.” In a 2014 paper titled “The Precautionary Principle,” he and several coauthors wrote that “the tightly connected global system implies a single deviation will eventually dominate the sum of their effects. Examples include

future outbreaks, the response needs to match the threat. The world needs to act as if everything is on the line. That means applying the “precautionary principle,” which, according to the memo, “delineates conditions where actions must be taken to reduce the risk of ruin, and traditional cost-benefit analyses must not

health, and the leadership of Western societies generally that it’s Taleb who has been speaking relentlessly, and largely alone, about the importance of the precautionary principle,” Susan Webber, who writes under the pen name of Yves Smith, opined at the time on her popular financial website, Naked Capitalism. It’s

just such problems that prompted Taleb, Bar-Yam, Norman, and another collaborator, the English philosopher and climate activist Rupert Read, in 2014, to write “The Precautionary Principle,” a preview of the January 2020 note that recommended dramatic, immediate action to stop the spread of Covid-19 despite overwhelming uncertainty about its properties

. The precautionary principle itself is designed to guide actions and policies in the realms of uncertainty and risk “in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness

coauthors wrote in the 2014 paper. If the risk of an action (or inaction) is global, uncertainty demands a strong precautionary response. Critics of the precautionary principle complain it’s too vague, subjective, paranoid, and contradictory, the enemy of progress and the ever-churning creation and destruction at the heart of capitalism

localized) and the consequences can involve total irreversible ruin, such as the extinction of human beings or all life on the planet,” they wrote. “The precautionary principle lets you relax about local problems,” Taleb told me. That doesn’t mean local problems should be ignored; it just means they don’t require

the extreme measures prescribed by the precautionary principle. This view of safeguards ties directly to Taleb’s experience as a trader and his approach to the risk of blowing up. Financial markets can

in the systemic-risk casino. Avoid those dice. Don’t get on the plane if you have doubts about the pilot. Panic early. Apply the precautionary principle. In practical terms, don’t use borrowed money (or leverage) and protect yourself from major crashes. That was precisely what he’d done alongside Mark

everything that I’ll be mentioning could have unintended consequences that we might not be able to anticipate.” Church put up a slide that read: “Precautionary Principle. If an action might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus, the burden of proof falls on

those who would advocate taking the action.” “You’ve got this precautionary principle,” Church said. “There’s a tendency, when you don’t understand things, to do nothing. And that’s defensible in some circumstances, and not

threat of a global pandemic, which graybeards have been warning about for years, is a reminder that we should always build public policy around the precautionary principle, rather than waiting until uncontestable and inarguable evidence arrives that action is necessary. If we wait that long, it will always be too late.” Among

looming civilizational disaster. She wanted Read to help launch it. Read told her XR should emphasize a philosophical approach to climate action based on the precautionary principle. A common tactic used by climate-change skeptics and deniers and corporations to fend off action against the problem was to point to the uncertainty

wrecking actions such as reducing the use of fossil fuels until we have more information? Think about the poor who want cheap power, too! The precautionary principle was an end run around that argument. The science might not be precise, but the risks, including mass human death and potential extinction, were too

. Reading voraciously on the topic, he stumbled across a 2001 report by the EU’s European Environment Agency called “Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896−2000.” The report examined a selection of environmental, medical, and chemical controversies, ranging from nineteenth-century British fisheries to radioactivity to asbestos, and how

the precautionary principle could be applied to them (global warming is barely mentioned, a follow-up in 2013 would address it). Read began studying the long and tangled

history of the precautionary principle and became convinced it provided a template for taking on the growing threat of global warming and other looming risks and catastrophes. The 2008 financial

said. “We should write about it. You and me.” After returning to the U.S., Taleb began acquainting himself with the vast literature behind the precautionary principle. He didn’t recall that George Church, the Harvard geneticist, had mentioned the principle in his presentation in 2009 at Brockman’s Edge meeting at

called “fat-tail city.” In short order, Taleb and Read got to work summarizing their views in what would eventually become the multiauthored paper “The Precautionary Principle.” * * * In April 2013, Taleb received a public letter from the musician and producer Brian Eno. The letter was sent via the Longplayer website, a thousand

problem. “Now that we have this principle, let us apply it to life on earth,” he wrote. “This is the basis of the non-naïve Precautionary Principle that the philosopher Rupert Read and I are in the process of elaborating, with precise policy implications on the part of states and individuals. Everything

slightly ill cases, they don’t require significant medical interventions—or any at all. Nature will take care of it—it doesn’t require the precautionary principle. Very sick cases require quick, aggressive intervention. “This gives a statistical structure to precaution,” he said. “A little bit of rigor in the way

summer of 2014, Yaneer Bar-Yam, founder of the New England Complex Systems Institute, or NECSI, heard about Taleb and Read’s work on the precautionary principle. He was intrigued. He called up Taleb, who was planning to come to a conference Bar-Yam was holding at NECSI’s campus in Cambridge

That is, the extinction of the human race. * * * After the 2014 NECSI conference in Cambridge, Bar-Yam got to work on Taleb and Read’s precautionary principle paper, which at the time was a fairly sparse draft with multiple section headings such as “WHY RUIN IS SERIOUS BUSINESS” and “WHAT WE MEAN

brain sciences at Florida Atlantic University. His first job out of college, in 2014, was at NECSI. The first paper he coauthored there was “The Precautionary Principle.” It went through multiple drafts circulated between Taleb, Read, Norman, and Bar-Yam. They finally completed the paper in the fall. On October 17,

2014, at 12:30 p.m., Taleb hit a button on his computer and published “The Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms)” on Cornell University’s arXiv.org. With the push of that button, Taleb had taken a leap

into one of the hottest public firestorms of his life. CHAPTER 18 RUIN IS FOREVER Abstract—The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the

safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. Thus begins “The Precautionary Principle.” A long-standing complaint about the principle has been: It’s too vague. When are risks so high that the principle needs to be invoked

a ‘one-off’ risk, survive it, then do it again (another ‘one-off’ deal), you will eventually go bust,” Taleb and his coauthors observed. The precautionary principle seeks to protect humanity from ruinous losses by refusing to take risks that can result in a global systemic crisis—“an irreversible termination of life

and his coauthors wrote. “Nature might not be smart, but its longer track record means smaller uncertainty in following its logic.” * * * The section of “The Precautionary Principle” that invited a coordinated attack on the authors—none took more heat than Taleb due to his highly public profile—was its call for an

introduced into some other organism, like bacteria—the outcome is unknowable. And even if those risks were small, their existence required the application of the precautionary principle. The GMO cheerleaders, they said, need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there is nearly zero existential risk—a very tough challenge indeed

selection and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from a fish and putting it into a tomato,” they wrote. “We should exert the precautionary principle here… because we do not want to discover errors after considerable and irreversible environmental and health damage.” As for the common argument among GMO supporters

a need for a much more precautionary approach to new chemicals and to the amount being emitted to the environment.” * * * With its publication online, “The Precautionary Principle” quickly began circulating among GMO experts. They were not amused. The authors were lumped in with anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists—or worse. A middle-school

−espoused “we are as gods” view of the world was ascendant. * * * In 2015, Taleb, Read, Bar-Yam, and Norman wrote a short paper applying the precautionary principle to another global risk—that of runaway global warming. The climate-change policy debate too often revolved around the accuracy of models, they wrote. Believers

complex system too far and it will not come back.” The upshot: Reduce CO2 emissions, “regardless of what climate models tell us.” * * * Taleb revisited the precautionary principle in 2018 with the publication of Skin in the Game, the fifth book in what he’d begun calling his Incerto collection, a study of

retired to do some flaneuring, Mark continued relentlessly (and successfully) at his Universa.” These scenarios of interconnected, self-reinforcing extreme risk are precisely where the precautionary principle applies. In the “time probability” realm, each roll of the dice or spin of the wheel is connected to the other. They can’t be

permanent damage to the planet and the well-being of all future generations.” He then raised a point that seemed to spring straight from the precautionary principle. “The first principle of risk management is that you have to think about worst-case scenarios,” he said. With global warming, the worst case

more? Almost certainly. Some models estimate geoengineering could eliminate or shorten the Asian monsoon season, on which two billion people depend for their food. The precautionary principle would seem to warn strongly against even considering geoengineering. It’s global, systemic, and could have exponential societal and environmental ramifications and unknown ecological tipping

and afternoon. He started taking ten-mile walks every day to get back into good health. Joe Norman, one of Taleb’s collaborators on “The Precautionary Principle,” had meanwhile started worrying vaccines were the problem. They were experimental, and were being tested on a vast population of billions. He was especially agitated

idea to tamper at large scale with something whose repercussions were anyone’s guess. Taleb found Norman’s analysis highly aggravating, a misapplication of the precautionary principle. Vaccines weren’t multiplicative like viruses, Taleb pointed out on Twitter. If your neighbor got a vaccine, that didn’t mean you were at

aversion to business suits, was an adherent of an increasingly influential semi-apocalyptic worldview known as longtermism—a movement that shared elements of Taleb’s precautionary principle. It was an outgrowth of a moral philosophy developed in the 2000s known as effective altruism, a quantitative philanthropic method designed to estimate probabilities about

than nukes.”)… or a killer asteroid… or, yes, nukes. Such concerns, on the surface, seemed to mirror the warnings about global ruin issued in “The Precautionary Principle.” The difference was that the precautionary approach was largely passive, a recommendation against taking actions that could pose extreme danger to humanity (though there are

or defeat our future superintelligent AI overlords), and genetic engineering (of humans, animals, and foods). It was, in a way, the polar opposite of the precautionary principle, advocating extreme Hail Mary experimentation in order to secure humanity’s boundless future. Causes the Longtermists cared less about? Poverty, an issue that had initially

to protect against such a dire event, as unlikely as it might be, made all the sense in the world. NASA was effectively adopting the precautionary principle. * * * Back at Universa, the spike in volatility in 2022 was the firm’s natural habitat—its calm seas comfort zone. In June, when the

Won’t,” Economist, November 22, 2010, https://www.economist.com/news/2010/11/22/nassim-taleb-looks-at-what-will-break-and-what-wont. “The Precautionary Principle” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf. CHAPTER 2: RUIN PROBLEMS “Systemic Risk of Pandemic via Novel Pathogens—Coronavirus: A Note” https://necsi.edu/systemic

-Yam and his colleagues at NECSI began crafting an alternative response https://necsi.edu/how-community-response-stopped-ebola. CHAPTER 18: RUIN IS FOREVER “The Precautionary Principle” can be found here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf. “Weed resistance to herbicides” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/magazine/superweeds-monsanto

Piedmont Lithium, 247, 248 Pimco, 24 Pinker, Steven, 124 polycrisis, 35 Popper, Karl, 62, 65–66 Powell, Jerome, 287 Powers, Jimmy, 52, 56 precautionary principle, 36–37, 189–90 Precautionary Principle, The (Taleb et al.), 16, 36 Princeton University Global Systemic Risk project, 31 Process Driven Training (PDT), 95–97 Project on Security and

The Innovation Illusion: How So Little Is Created by So Many Working So Hard

by Fredrik Erixon and Bjorn Weigel  · 3 Oct 2016  · 504pp  · 126,835 words

companies, or when regulatory processes just take too long, they naturally move in other directions, hoping to avoid the long arm of excessive regulation. The precautionary principle at work Precautionary regulations often make regulations complex – and innovation risks greater – because they are by definition ambiguous in their intent. They do not address

or may not be accurate, but what is clear is that regulatory complexity and uncertainty followed hard on the heels of the introduction of the precautionary principle in EU regulation. Such a principle is impossible to marry with the ambition of promoting an industrial culture of innovation and experimentation. “The reflex is

to first look at a new product’s risks as opposed to its benefits,” making “technological progress almost impossible,” says one industry leader.5 The precautionary principle shifts the burden of proof by demanding that it is up to a producer to show that a product is not causing harm. Harvard professor

writer Ronald Bailey has summed it up: “Anything new is guilty until proven innocent.”7 Proving a negative is not just a philosophical challenge. The precautionary principle prompts a regulatory culture that is unpredictable. It is difficult to know what needs to be done in order to be on the safe side

time and costs money. When regulations are ambiguous, regulators are often given flexibility on how to determine whether a product is cleared or not. The precautionary principle erases the scientific ethos that should guide regulatory conduct, and adds significant costs to innovation. Nanomaterials is another example. Nanotechnology is promising, especially for Europe

transparent. Regulations giving substantial discretion to regulators or politicians in deciding whether a company complies or not are multipliers of uncertainty. When regulations embody the precautionary principle it is close to impossible for an innovator to know what is needed to get necessary approvals. Such regulations only tell companies to divert investments

that do not require innovators to ask for permission or apply for special licenses in order to put new products on the market. Europe’s precautionary principle is a case in point. It is an open-ended principle, enshrined in European law, and it gives every opportunity to charlatans with little regard

to block innovation and economic experimentation. Moreover, it gives incumbents, defending their product stock, opportunities to shield themselves from competitors. It is true that the precautionary principle is an extreme form of regulation because it causes widespread or systemic uncertainty, but similar approaches to new inventions also guide less extreme regulations. Western

May 2015.” 3.Gensch et al., “Assistance to the Commission.” 4.CSES, “Interim Evaluation.” 5.Dekkers, “Why Europe Lags on Innovation.” 6.Sunstein, “Beyond the Precautionary Principle.” 7.Bailey, “Precautionary Tale.” 8.European Commission, “Nanomaterials.” 9.Rabesandratana, “EU Court Annuls GM Potato Approval.” 10.Dunmore, “Monsantoo Withdraw EU Approval Requests.” 11.Moynihan

. Summers, Lawrence H., “US Economic Prospects: Secular Stagnation, Hysteresis, and the Zero Lower Bound.” Business Economics, 49.2 (2014): 65–73. Sunstein, Cass, “Beyond the Precautionary Principle.” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 38. Law School, University of Chicago, Jan. 2003. At http://ssrn.com/abstract=307098. Surowiecki, James, “Unequal

(i), (ii) genetically modified organisms (GMOs) regulations (i), (ii), (iii) GM potato regulations (i) Leave campaign and older generation (UK) (i) nanotechnology regulations (i), (ii) precautionary principle (i) R&D scoreboards (i), (ii) Single Market (i) see also eurozone; Europe eurozone Germany and “sick man of the euro” label (i) pensions (i

Innovation and Its Enemies

by Calestous Juma  · 20 Mar 2017

The Skeptical Economist: Revealing the Ethics Inside Economics

by Jonathan Aldred  · 1 Jan 2009  · 339pp  · 105,938 words

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century

by Ronald Bailey  · 20 Jul 2015  · 417pp  · 109,367 words

Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power

by Steve Coll  · 30 Apr 2012  · 944pp  · 243,883 words

Food and Fuel: Solutions for the Future

by Andrew Heintzman, Evan Solomon and Eric Schlosser  · 2 Feb 2009  · 323pp  · 89,795 words

A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century: Evolution and the Challenges of Modern Life

by Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein  · 14 Sep 2021  · 384pp  · 105,110 words

Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist

by Richard Dawkins  · 15 Mar 2017  · 420pp  · 130,714 words

The Irrational Economist: Making Decisions in a Dangerous World

by Erwann Michel-Kerjan and Paul Slovic  · 5 Jan 2010  · 411pp  · 108,119 words

The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs

by Nicolas Pineault  · 6 Dec 2017

The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World

by David Deutsch  · 30 Jun 2011  · 551pp  · 174,280 words

Global Catastrophic Risks

by Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Cirkovic  · 2 Jul 2008

Artificial You: AI and the Future of Your Mind

by Susan Schneider  · 1 Oct 2019  · 331pp  · 47,993 words

The new village green: living light, living local, living large

by Stephen Morris  · 1 Sep 2007  · 289pp  · 112,697 words

Green and Prosperous Land: A Blueprint for Rescuing the British Countryside

by Dieter Helm  · 7 Mar 2019  · 348pp  · 102,438 words

Net Zero: How We Stop Causing Climate Change

by Dieter Helm  · 2 Sep 2020  · 304pp  · 90,084 words

The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values

by Brian Christian  · 5 Oct 2020  · 625pp  · 167,349 words

EuroTragedy: A Drama in Nine Acts

by Ashoka Mody  · 7 May 2018

Thinking, Fast and Slow

by Daniel Kahneman  · 24 Oct 2011  · 654pp  · 191,864 words

The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future

by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway  · 30 Jun 2014  · 105pp  · 18,832 words

Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution

by Francis Fukuyama  · 1 Jan 2002  · 350pp  · 96,803 words

Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World

by Paul Stamets  · 14 Apr 2005  · 732pp  · 151,889 words

Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life

by Nassim Nicholas Taleb  · 20 Feb 2018  · 306pp  · 82,765 words

The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do About It

by Ian Goldin and Mike Mariathasan  · 15 Mar 2014  · 414pp  · 101,285 words

Who’s Raising the Kids?: Big Tech, Big Business, and the Lives of Children

by Susan Linn  · 12 Sep 2022  · 415pp  · 102,982 words

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

by Ray Kurzweil  · 14 Jul 2005  · 761pp  · 231,902 words

In Our Own Image: Savior or Destroyer? The History and Future of Artificial Intelligence

by George Zarkadakis  · 7 Mar 2016  · 405pp  · 117,219 words

100 Plus: How the Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything, From Careers and Relationships to Family And

by Sonia Arrison  · 22 Aug 2011  · 381pp  · 78,467 words

Super Thinking: The Big Book of Mental Models

by Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCann  · 17 Jun 2019

Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth

by Mark Hertsgaard  · 15 Jan 2011  · 326pp  · 48,727 words

Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right

by Arlie Russell Hochschild  · 5 Sep 2016  · 435pp  · 120,574 words

Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era

by James Barrat  · 30 Sep 2013  · 294pp  · 81,292 words

Click Here to Kill Everybody: Security and Survival in a Hyper-Connected World

by Bruce Schneier  · 3 Sep 2018  · 448pp  · 117,325 words

Licence to be Bad

by Jonathan Aldred  · 5 Jun 2019  · 453pp  · 111,010 words

Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design

by Matthew Carmona, Tim Heath, Steve Tiesdell and Taner Oc  · 15 Feb 2010  · 1,233pp  · 239,800 words

What If We Get It Right?: Visions of Climate Futures

by Ayana Elizabeth Johnson  · 17 Sep 2024  · 588pp  · 160,825 words

Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work

by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams  · 1 Oct 2015  · 357pp  · 95,986 words

Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives

by Michael Specter  · 14 Apr 2009  · 281pp  · 79,958 words

Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism

by Sharon Beder  · 1 Jan 1997  · 651pp  · 161,270 words

The Scientist as Rebel

by Freeman Dyson  · 1 Jan 2006  · 332pp  · 109,213 words

Spike: The Virus vs The People - The Inside Story

by Jeremy Farrar and Anjana Ahuja  · 15 Jan 2021  · 245pp  · 71,886 words

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

by Richard Dawkins  · 21 Sep 2009

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations With Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason

by Lee McIntyre  · 14 Sep 2021  · 407pp  · 108,030 words

The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy

by Dani Rodrik  · 23 Dec 2010  · 356pp  · 103,944 words

On the Future: Prospects for Humanity

by Martin J. Rees  · 14 Oct 2018  · 193pp  · 51,445 words

A Hacker's Mind: How the Powerful Bend Society's Rules, and How to Bend Them Back

by Bruce Schneier  · 7 Feb 2023  · 306pp  · 82,909 words

Escape From Model Land: How Mathematical Models Can Lead Us Astray and What We Can Do About It

by Erica Thompson  · 6 Dec 2022  · 250pp  · 79,360 words

Business Lessons From a Radical Industrialist

by Ray C. Anderson  · 28 Mar 2011  · 412pp  · 113,782 words

CRISPR People: The Science and Ethics of Editing Humans

by Henry T. Greely  · 22 Jan 2021

That Used to Be Us

by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum  · 1 Sep 2011  · 441pp  · 136,954 words

Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century

by P. W. Singer  · 1 Jan 2010  · 797pp  · 227,399 words

The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power

by Joel Bakan  · 1 Jan 2003

Human Frontiers: The Future of Big Ideas in an Age of Small Thinking

by Michael Bhaskar  · 2 Nov 2021

The Price of Everything: And the Hidden Logic of Value

by Eduardo Porter  · 4 Jan 2011  · 353pp  · 98,267 words

Gnomon

by Nick Harkaway  · 18 Oct 2017  · 778pp  · 239,744 words

The Norm Chronicles

by Michael Blastland  · 14 Oct 2013

Forty Signs of Rain

by Kim Stanley Robinson  · 29 May 2004  · 362pp  · 104,308 words

The Economists' Hour: How the False Prophets of Free Markets Fractured Our Society

by Binyamin Appelbaum  · 4 Sep 2019  · 614pp  · 174,226 words

Money: 5,000 Years of Debt and Power

by Michel Aglietta  · 23 Oct 2018  · 665pp  · 146,542 words

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate

by Naomi Klein  · 15 Sep 2014  · 829pp  · 229,566 words

How Democracy Ends

by David Runciman  · 9 May 2018  · 245pp  · 72,893 words

Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy

by Dani Rodrik  · 8 Oct 2017  · 322pp  · 87,181 words

Life at the Speed of Light: From the Double Helix to the Dawn of Digital Life

by J. Craig Venter  · 16 Oct 2013  · 285pp  · 78,180 words

The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves

by Matt Ridley  · 17 May 2010  · 462pp  · 150,129 words

The Locavore's Dilemma

by Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu  · 29 May 2012  · 329pp  · 85,471 words

The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom

by Yochai Benkler  · 14 May 2006  · 678pp  · 216,204 words

Future Files: A Brief History of the Next 50 Years

by Richard Watson  · 1 Jan 2008

Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex

by Rupert Darwall  · 2 Oct 2017  · 451pp  · 115,720 words

On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything

by Nate Silver  · 12 Aug 2024  · 848pp  · 227,015 words

Ageless: The New Science of Getting Older Without Getting Old

by Andrew Steele  · 24 Dec 2020  · 399pp  · 118,576 words

Data Action: Using Data for Public Good

by Sarah Williams  · 14 Sep 2020

The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge

by Matt Ridley  · 395pp  · 116,675 words

Rogue States

by Noam Chomsky  · 9 Jul 2015

The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction

by Matthew B. Crawford  · 29 Mar 2015  · 351pp  · 100,791 words

Propaganda and the Public Mind

by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian  · 31 Mar 2015

The Smart Wife: Why Siri, Alexa, and Other Smart Home Devices Need a Feminist Reboot

by Yolande Strengers and Jenny Kennedy  · 14 Apr 2020

Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons

by Peter Barnes  · 29 Sep 2006  · 207pp  · 52,716 words

Everything Under the Sun: Toward a Brighter Future on a Small Blue Planet

by Ian Hanington  · 13 May 2012  · 258pp  · 77,601 words

Being You: A New Science of Consciousness

by Anil Seth  · 29 Aug 2021  · 418pp  · 102,597 words

The Survival of the City: Human Flourishing in an Age of Isolation

by Edward Glaeser and David Cutler  · 14 Sep 2021  · 735pp  · 165,375 words

The Debian Administrator's Handbook, Debian Wheezy From Discovery to Mastery

by Raphaal Hertzog and Roland Mas  · 24 Dec 2013  · 678pp  · 159,840 words

The Techno-Human Condition

by Braden R. Allenby and Daniel R. Sarewitz  · 15 Feb 2011

The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring on the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World

by Paul Gilding  · 28 Mar 2011  · 337pp  · 103,273 words

As Gods: A Moral History of the Genetic Age

by Matthew Cobb  · 15 Nov 2022  · 772pp  · 150,109 words

The Caryatids

by Bruce Sterling  · 24 Feb 2009  · 387pp  · 105,250 words

The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa

by Calestous Juma  · 27 May 2017

Homemade Kids: Thrifty, Creative and Eco-Friendly Ways to Raise Your Child

by Nicola Baird  · 14 Sep 2010

The Boom: How Fracking Ignited the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World

by Russell Gold  · 7 Apr 2014  · 423pp  · 118,002 words

Why We Drive: Toward a Philosophy of the Open Road

by Matthew B. Crawford  · 8 Jun 2020  · 386pp  · 113,709 words

Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization

by Parag Khanna  · 18 Apr 2016  · 497pp  · 144,283 words

Let My People Go Surfing

by Yvon Chouinard  · 20 Jun 2006  · 201pp  · 64,545 words

Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the Agi Workshop 2006

by Ben Goertzel and Pei Wang  · 1 Jan 2007  · 303pp  · 67,891 words

The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans

by Mark Lynas  · 3 Oct 2011  · 369pp  · 98,776 words

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All

by Michael Shellenberger  · 28 Jun 2020

How Big Things Get Done: The Surprising Factors Behind Every Successful Project, From Home Renovations to Space Exploration

by Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner  · 16 Feb 2023  · 353pp  · 97,029 words

State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century

by Francis Fukuyama  · 7 Apr 2004

Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks From the Stone Age to AI

by Yuval Noah Harari  · 9 Sep 2024  · 566pp  · 169,013 words

Blood, Iron, and Gold: How the Railways Transformed the World

by Christian Wolmar  · 1 Mar 2010  · 424pp  · 140,262 words

What's Next?: Unconventional Wisdom on the Future of the World Economy

by David Hale and Lyric Hughes Hale  · 23 May 2011  · 397pp  · 112,034 words

The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty

by Benjamin H. Bratton  · 19 Feb 2016  · 903pp  · 235,753 words

The Star Builders: Nuclear Fusion and the Race to Power the Planet

by Arthur Turrell  · 2 Aug 2021  · 297pp  · 84,447 words

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

by Steven Pinker  · 13 Feb 2018  · 1,034pp  · 241,773 words

How Much Is Enough?: Money and the Good Life

by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky  · 18 Jun 2012  · 279pp  · 87,910 words

The Last Lingua Franca: English Until the Return of Babel

by Nicholas Ostler  · 23 Nov 2010  · 484pp  · 120,507 words

How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities

by John Cassidy  · 10 Nov 2009  · 545pp  · 137,789 words

How to Speak Money: What the Money People Say--And What It Really Means

by John Lanchester  · 5 Oct 2014  · 261pp  · 86,905 words

The End of the Cold War: 1985-1991

by Robert Service  · 7 Oct 2015

Making Sense of Chaos: A Better Economics for a Better World

by J. Doyne Farmer  · 24 Apr 2024  · 406pp  · 114,438 words

Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition

by Robert N. Proctor  · 28 Feb 2012  · 1,199pp  · 332,563 words

Drugs Without the Hot Air

by David Nutt  · 30 May 2012  · 605pp  · 110,673 words

Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future

by Paul Mason  · 29 Jul 2015  · 378pp  · 110,518 words

Meat: A Benign Extravagance

by Simon Fairlie  · 14 Jun 2010  · 614pp  · 176,458 words

Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

by Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner  · 14 Sep 2015  · 317pp  · 100,414 words

Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference

by David Halpern  · 26 Aug 2015  · 387pp  · 120,155 words

Disrupt and Deny: Spies, Special Forces, and the Secret Pursuit of British Foreign Policy

by Rory Cormac  · 14 Jun 2018  · 407pp

The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the Twenty-First Century's Greatest Dilemma

by Mustafa Suleyman  · 4 Sep 2023  · 444pp  · 117,770 words

The Missing Billionaires: A Guide to Better Financial Decisions

by Victor Haghani and James White  · 27 Aug 2023  · 314pp  · 122,534 words

Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation With Homeownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis

by Johan Norberg  · 14 Sep 2009  · 246pp  · 74,341 words

Future War: Preparing for the New Global Battlefield

by Robert H. Latiff  · 25 Sep 2017  · 158pp  · 46,353 words

Year's Best SF 15

by David G. Hartwell; Kathryn Cramer  · 15 Aug 2010  · 573pp  · 163,302 words

Feral: Rewilding the Land, the Sea, and Human Life

by George Monbiot  · 13 May 2013  · 424pp  · 122,350 words

Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It

by Richard V. Reeves  · 22 May 2017  · 198pp  · 52,089 words

Aurora

by Kim Stanley Robinson  · 6 Jul 2015  · 488pp  · 148,340 words

Open: The Progressive Case for Free Trade, Immigration, and Global Capital

by Kimberly Clausing  · 4 Mar 2019  · 555pp  · 80,635 words

A Short History of Progress

by Ronald Wright  · 2 Jan 2004  · 225pp  · 54,010 words

Live and Let Spy: BRIXMIS - the Last Cold War Mission

by Steve Gibson  · 2 Mar 2012  · 377pp  · 121,996 words

The Sport and Prey of Capitalists

by Linda McQuaig  · 30 Aug 2019  · 263pp  · 79,016 words

A New History of the Future in 100 Objects: A Fiction

by Adrian Hon  · 5 Oct 2020  · 340pp  · 101,675 words

The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy

by Seth Mnookin  · 3 Jan 2012  · 566pp  · 153,259 words

Pandora's Brain

by Calum Chace  · 4 Feb 2014  · 345pp  · 104,404 words

Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash

by Elizabeth Royte  · 1 Jan 2005  · 308pp  · 98,729 words

A Poison Like No Other: How Microplastics Corrupted Our Planet and Our Bodies

by Matt Simon  · 24 Jun 2022  · 254pp  · 82,981 words

Seeds of Hope: Wisdom and Wonder From the World of Plants

by Jane Goodall  · 1 Apr 2013  · 452pp  · 135,790 words

The Premonition: A Pandemic Story

by Michael Lewis  · 3 May 2021  · 285pp  · 98,832 words

Hope Dies Last: Visionary People Across the World, Fighting to Find Us a Future

by Alan Weisman  · 21 Apr 2025  · 599pp  · 149,014 words