Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: RE : [bafuture] Must-know Terms for the 21st Century Intellectual: Redux

Expand Messages
  • Natasha Vita-More
    ... You are referring to the 1970s Vorsorgeprinzip (Germany). The English translation is precautionary principle, but it has taken on a new slant and is being
    Message 1 of 21 , Jan 28, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      At 07:04 PM 1/28/2007, James wrote:

      >Interesting that you identify the precautionary principle with political
      >conservatives. I've always unconsciously associated it with the left as I
      >first encountered it in mainstream press in an anti-GM, anti-globalization
      >context.

      You are referring to the 1970s Vorsorgeprinzip (Germany). The English
      translation is precautionary principle, but it has taken on a new slant and
      is being used to heighten caution concerning emergent technologies,
      especially biotechnologies for the purpose of improving the human condition
      and human life.

      One of the best examples I can is Leon Kass or Bill Hurlbutt claims that
      the precautionary principle must be used to stop emergent technologies.
      http://www.reason.com/news/show/34752.html


      A location where the precautionary principle is used a lot is in the New
      Atlantis http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/1/kass.htm

      http://www.biotech-info.net/precautionary.html





      >On 1/28/07, Natasha Vita-More
      ><<mailto:natasha%40natasha.cc>natasha@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > At 07:43 PM 1/25/2007, Wayne wrote:
      > >
      > > >Is this something like the "Precautionary Principle"? I once heard an
      > > >hour-long debate about it, and at the end, I had absolutely no idea
      > > >what the "Precautionary Principle" was.
      > >
      > > The Precautionary Principle is being used as the measuring methodology for
      > >
      > > which the conservative right is basing its assessment and judgement on
      > > emergent technologies. It is an unbalanced measure because it
      > > unequivocally places the burden of proof on the innovative technology to
      > > prove itself approximately 100% successful in order for it to be supported
      > >
      > > and employed into society. There is certainly a gray area herein, but most
      > >
      > > importantly it is an unbalanced measure being "used" to stunt
      > > technological
      > > growth.
      > >
      > > A "balanced" measure designed to offer an alternative to this severe
      > > measure is the "Proactionary Principle" which is designed to look at both
      > > sides of the coin: (1) what could the technology do to advance, assist,
      > > and improve conditions and (2) what are the potential for dangers of the
      > > technology. Herein the assessment is to weight both sides and then to make
      > >
      > > a decision as to whether the technology ought to be developed, supported
      > > and employed by humanity/government/industry/individuals.
      > >
      > > Because of emergent and the accelerating rate of technology and many
      > > policy-makers being unfamiliar with technology, per se and generally how
      > > to
      > > asses the future, this principle is immensely important to know about and
      > > support (me thinks).
      > >
      > > >It even occured to me that trying to follow "X Principle" is
      > > >impossible because no 2 people have the same concept of what X means
      > > >in their brain. No?
      > >
      > > I don't think so. Rules and regulations are inflexible unless legal action
      > >
      > > is taken to adjust them, which takes time and money. It is far better to
      > > develop literature and other means for people to learn about what is
      > > happening in their world and how the rules and regulations are developed
      > > and adhered to. In other words, If the policy-makers are biased about
      > > progress and technologies it can and does hinder the growth and
      > > development
      > > of society and its people. The Proactionary Principle addresses
      > > this. Here is some literature. (Max has been writing a book on it.)
      > >
      > >
      > <http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm>http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm
      > >
      > > http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.htm
      > >
      > >
      > <http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000113.php>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000113.php
      > >
      > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_Principle
      > >
      > > Best wishes,
      > >
      > > Natasha
      > >
      > > <<http://www.natasha.cc/>http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha
      > <<http://www.natasha.cc/>http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
      > > Design Media Artist - Futurist
      > > PhD Candidate,
      > >
      > <<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary
      > >
      > > Collegium
      > > Proactionary Principle Core Group,
      > <<http://www.extropy.org/>http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy
      > > <<http://www.extropy.org/>http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
      > > Member,
      > <<http://www.profuturists.com/>http://www.profuturists.com/>Association
      > of Professional
      > > Futurists
      > > Founder,
      > <<http://www.transhumanist.biz/>http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanis
      > t Arts & Culture
      > >
      > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
      > > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
      > > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
      > > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >--
      >------
      >James Douma
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >

      <http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
      Design Media Artist - Futurist
      PhD Candidate,
      <http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary
      Collegium
      Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy
      <http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
      Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
      Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

      If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
      then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
      circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
      perspective. - Buckminster Fuller




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • J. Andrew Rogers
      ... Eh? The Precautionary Principle is the child of the fringe political left-wing, usually associated with the environmentalist and anti- globalist factions.
      Message 2 of 21 , Jan 29, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jan 28, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
        > At 07:43 PM 1/25/2007, Wayne wrote:
        >
        >> Is this something like the "Precautionary Principle"? I once heard an
        >> hour-long debate about it, and at the end, I had absolutely no idea
        >> what the "Precautionary Principle" was.
        >
        > The Precautionary Principle is being used as the measuring
        > methodology for
        > which the conservative right is basing its assessment and judgement on
        > emergent technologies. It is an unbalanced measure because it
        > unequivocally places the burden of proof on the innovative
        > technology to
        > prove itself approximately 100% successful in order for it to be
        > supported
        > and employed into society.


        Eh? The Precautionary Principle is the child of the fringe political
        left-wing, usually associated with the environmentalist and anti-
        globalist factions. It is true that in recent times the theocrats
        and socially conservative populists have jumped on the bandwagon, but
        that is because they saw something they liked. It is wrong either
        way, but this particular bit of anti-science pretty clearly
        originates with the left-wing and was only later "discovered" by anti-
        science factions in the right-wing.


        The real danger is that because both the left-wing and right-wing
        have their share of anti-science political factions, they may
        actually be able to cooperate on this particular issue to effect
        legislation from both sides of the aisle. The anti-science nuts on
        the left or right cannot do it on their own because they are a
        minority faction in both cases, but if they join forces they can be
        powerful.


        J. Andrew Rogers
      • Wayne Radinsky
        ... Pardon me for asking another silly question, but why is the Precautionary Principle anti-science ? Science is a process for testing hypothesises to see
        Message 3 of 21 , Jan 29, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > On Jan 28, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
          >> At 07:43 PM 1/25/2007, Wayne wrote:
          >>> Is this something like the "Precautionary Principle"? I once heard
          >>> an hour-long debate about it, and at the end, I had absolutely no
          >>> idea what the "Precautionary Principle" was.
          >>
          >> The Precautionary Principle is being used as the measuring
          >> methodology for which the conservative right is basing its
          >> assessment and judgement on emergent technologies. It is an
          >> unbalanced measure because it unequivocally places the burden of
          >> proof on the innovative technology to prove itself approximately
          >> 100% successful in order for it to be supported and employed into
          >> society.
          >
          > Eh? The Precautionary Principle is the child of the fringe
          > political left-wing, usually associated with the environmentalist
          > and anti- globalist factions. It is true that in recent times the
          > theocrats and socially conservative populists have jumped on the
          > bandwagon, but that is because they saw something they liked. It is
          > wrong either way, but this particular bit of anti-science pretty
          > clearly originates with the left-wing and was only later
          > "discovered" by anti- science factions in the right-wing.
          >
          > The real danger is that because both the left-wing and right-wing
          > have their share of anti-science political factions, they may
          > actually be able to cooperate on this particular issue to effect
          > legislation from both sides of the aisle. The anti-science nuts on
          > the left or right cannot do it on their own because they are a
          > minority faction in both cases, but if they join forces they can be
          > powerful.

          Pardon me for asking another silly question, but why is the
          Precautionary Principle "anti-science"?

          Science is a process for testing hypothesises to see what is true
          about the world. What does that have to do with the Precautionary
          Principle?
        • J. Andrew Rogers
          ... A fair point. The Precautionary Principle is not anti-science per se, but its practical consequence is that it slows or stops scientific progress by
          Message 4 of 21 , Jan 29, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Wayne Radinsky wrote:
            > Pardon me for asking another silly question, but why is the
            > Precautionary Principle "anti-science"?
            >
            > Science is a process for testing hypothesises to see what is true
            > about the world. What does that have to do with the Precautionary
            > Principle?


            A fair point.

            The Precautionary Principle is not anti-science per se, but its
            practical consequence is that it slows or stops scientific progress
            by preventing the testing of hypotheses politically. This property
            of the Precautionary Principle is the primary reason its proponents
            promote it, as they see it as a means to their anti-science or anti-
            progress ends.

            I think a distinction can be made between those that are anti-science
            (primarily right-wing theocrats) and those that are anti-progress
            (primarily miscellaneous left-wing factions). It is easy to lump
            them together because from some perspectives there is no practical
            difference in their desired outcomes, but they do have somewhat
            different motivations (though arguably grounded in the same kind of
            irrationality).


            Cheers,

            J. Andrew Rogers
          • Troy Gardner
            ... Science/Technology on a pure level is a progression that builds on previous successes, with no real social evaluation to the outcome. e.g. splitting the
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 29, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > Pardon me for asking another silly question, but why is the
              > Precautionary Principle "anti-science"?
              >
              > Science is a process for testing hypothesises to see what is true
              > about the world. What does that have to do with the Precautionary
              > Principle?

              Science/Technology on a pure level is a progression that builds on previous
              successes, with no real social evaluation to the outcome. e.g. splitting the
              atom is cool. Should everybody have a Mr. AtomSplitter at home? Clearly not.
              That's where the Precautionary Principal comes in. All paths that may end up in
              Mr. AtomSplitter get curtailed before they start.

              On that path of 'advancement' there are outcomes possible that have deep
              repurcussions to humanity (e.g. the atomic bomb), and some that shake the very
              roots of being human (e.g genetics, implants), thus political bodies attempt to
              regulate, to maintain some cultural stasis, as society both legally and
              culturally isn't generally ready for things far outside what we've got.

              Consider the entire technology a ridgidly defined sandbox/playground that
              politicians want like a concerned parent to make sure the kids (technologists
              and scientists) don't go anything unexpected or out of bounds. Thus when they
              they see a kid running in a certain direction eg. to the swingset, they can
              anticipate what would come next (e.g. kids swinging and jumping). And fear
              possible outcomes, eg. breaking a leg or a neck. Since there are a lot of
              kids, and not enough parents they setup miles of tape (laws) surrounding and
              quarantining, or even outright outlawing of swingsets and lawndarts. And kids
              are no longer free to scientifically conduct tests on whether they can fly or
              not, even if they have really figured out anti-gravity, or how to sprout wings.

              Sometimes parents, just don't understand.
            • Joschka Fisher
              from the Excellent topical Choice for Bafutures desk of joschka fischer Greetings: OK...I ran across a wiki definition. Precautionary Principle: Wikipedia
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 30, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                from the " Excellent topical Choice for Bafutures"
                desk of joschka fischer


                Greetings:

                OK...I ran across a wiki definition.

                Precautionary Principle: Wikipedia
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

                Can you now show me some "real life" protagonists of
                the principles such that:


                a) they fall on political boundaries

                b) it impedes science or it impedes technology (which
                does it impede)

                c) is the agenda to impede or get one's own
                technology in he vanguard and make a profit. i.e. the
                Japanese had 3G technology ready to go before Europe.
                So Europe pass a bunch ao rules making 3G hard to
                implement until EU finally caught up with the
                Japanese.

                d) Is Precautionary Principle an actual movement or
                an "after the fact" polarizing scheme by
                dog-in-the-manger types?

                e) Regarding the wiki definition...what are the
                loopholes to an Precautionary principles as an applied
                practice?

                f) Do the following books/articles refer to this
                bludgeoning if not impeding science?

                Interpreting the Precautionary Principle:
                http://dieoff.org/page31.htm


                The Republican War against Science:
                by Chris Mooney

                http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/0465046762/sr=8-1/qid=1170216559/ref=sr_1_1/103-5303380-0466203?ie=UTF8&s=books


                How Science Make Political Controversies Worse:
                by Daniel Sarewitz
                http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/articles/EnvironControv.htm


                Hiding Behind Science et other diatribes by Daniel
                Sarewitz
                http://unjobs.org/authors/daniel-sarewitz

                Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the
                Erosion of American Democracy; With a new Afterword
                (Paperback)
                by Jacob S. Hacker, Paul Pierson

                http://www.amazon.com/Off-Center-Republican-Revolution-Democracy/dp/0300119755/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/103-5303380-0466203



                and lastly....


                but what are Science and Technology exactly and their
                differences and how are they conducted?

                Please don't say by the scientific method.

                Why?

                I've been working on this book for 3 months already
                and ready for debate.

                Here's why.....
                Book: Scientific Literacy and the myth of the
                scientific method by Henry H. Bauer
                http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Literacy-Myth-Method/dp/0252064364/sr=1-1/qid=1170217281/ref=sr_1_1/103-5303380-0466203?ie=UTF8&s=books


                Also

                How Institutions Think (Frank W. Abrams Lectures)
                (Paperback)
                by Mary Douglas
                http://www.amazon.com/Institutions-Think-Frank-Abrams-Lectures/dp/0815602065/sr=1-1/qid=1170217385/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5303380-0466203?ie=UTF8&s=books


                Yea... I read too much but most non-homeless people
                who can afford to go to college never read the right
                things, if you ask me!



                --- "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew@...> a
                écrit :

                >
                > On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Wayne Radinsky wrote:
                > > Pardon me for asking another silly question, but
                > why is the
                > > Precautionary Principle "anti-science"?
                > >
                > > Science is a process for testing hypothesises to
                > see what is true
                > > about the world. What does that have to do with
                > the Precautionary
                > > Principle?
                >
                >
                > A fair point.
                >
                > The Precautionary Principle is not anti-science per
                > se, but its
                > practical consequence is that it slows or stops
                > scientific progress
                > by preventing the testing of hypotheses politically.
                > This property
                > of the Precautionary Principle is the primary reason
                > its proponents
                > promote it, as they see it as a means to their
                > anti-science or anti-
                > progress ends.
                >
                > I think a distinction can be made between those that
                > are anti-science
                > (primarily right-wing theocrats) and those that are
                > anti-progress
                > (primarily miscellaneous left-wing factions). It is
                > easy to lump
                > them together because from some perspectives there
                > is no practical
                > difference in their desired outcomes, but they do
                > have somewhat
                > different motivations (though arguably grounded in
                > the same kind of
                > irrationality).
                >
                >
                > Cheers,
                >
                > J. Andrew Rogers
                >
                >






                ___________________________________________________________________________
                Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
                Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
                http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
              • Natasha Vita-More
                ... The Precautionary Principle is being used as the measuring methodology for which the conservative right is basing its assessment and judgement on emergent
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 31, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 07:43 PM 1/25/2007, Wayne wrote:

                  >Is this something like the "Precautionary Principle"? I once heard an
                  >hour-long debate about it, and at the end, I had absolutely no idea
                  >what the "Precautionary Principle" was.

                  The Precautionary Principle is being used as the measuring methodology for
                  which the conservative right is basing its assessment and judgement on
                  emergent technologies. It is an unbalanced measure because it
                  unequivocally places the burden of proof on the innovative technology to
                  prove itself approximately 100% successful in order for it to be supported
                  and employed into society. There is certainly a gray area herein, but most
                  importantly it is an unbalanced measure being "used" to stunt technological
                  growth.

                  A "balanced" measure designed to offer an alternative to this severe
                  measure is the "Proactionary Principle" which is designed to look at both
                  sides of the coin: (1) what could the technology do to advance, assist,
                  and improve conditions and (2) what are the potential for dangers of the
                  technology. Herein the assessment is to weight both sides and then to make
                  a decision as to whether the technology ought to be developed, supported
                  and employed by humanity/government/industry/individuals.

                  Because of emergent and the accelerating rate of technology and many
                  policy-makers being unfamiliar with technology, per se and generally how to
                  asses the future, this principle is immensely important to know about and
                  support (me thinks).

                  >It even occured to me that trying to follow "X Principle" is
                  >impossible because no 2 people have the same concept of what X means
                  >in their brain. No?

                  I don't think so. Rules and regulations are inflexible unless legal action
                  is taken to adjust them, which takes time and money. It is far better to
                  develop literature and other means for people to learn about what is
                  happening in their world and how the rules and regulations are developed
                  and adhered to. In other words, If the policy-makers are biased about
                  progress and technologies it can and does hinder the growth and development
                  of society and its people. The Proactionary Principle addresses
                  this. Here is some literature. (Max has been writing a book on it.)

                  http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm

                  http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.htm

                  http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000113.php

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_Principle

                  Best wishes,

                  Natasha

                  <http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
                  Design Media Artist - Futurist
                  PhD Candidate,
                  <http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary
                  Collegium
                  Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy
                  <http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
                  Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
                  Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

                  If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
                  then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
                  circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
                  perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Natasha Vita-More
                  From: J. Andrew Rogers ... Eh? :-) Okay, again, the Precautionary Principle is being used by biotech conservatives and I provided just a few of the thousands
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 31, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: J. Andrew Rogers

                    >Eh? The Precautionary Principle is the child of the fringe political
                    >left-wing, usually associated with the environmentalist and anti-
                    >globalist factions. It is true that in recent times the theocrats
                    >and socially conservative populists have jumped on the bandwagon, but
                    >that is because they saw something they liked. It is wrong either
                    >way, but this particular bit of anti-science pretty clearly
                    >originates with the left-wing and was only later "discovered" by anti-
                    >science factions in the right-wing.

                    Eh? :-) Okay, again, the Precautionary Principle is being used by biotech
                    conservatives and I provided just a few of the thousands of links to show
                    examples of this. We were talking about why the alternative to the
                    Precautionary Principle, the Proactionary Principle is a "must-know" term
                    for the 21st Century intellectuals, who I believe are, in large part,
                    transhumanists because it is proposes a balanced measure for assessing risk.

                    And, yes the original German term stems from environmental concerns, but
                    that is not what I am talking about in regards to the English term now
                    being used by biotech conservatives. It was borrowed by the conservative
                    right and I believe as a discredit to the original term. (But that is
                    another topic.)

                    Best wishes,

                    Natasha

                    <http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
                    Design Media Artist - Futurist
                    PhD Candidate,
                    <http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary
                    Collegium
                    Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy
                    <http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
                    Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
                    Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

                    If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
                    then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
                    circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
                    perspective. - Buckminster Fuller




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Natasha Vita-More
                    ... There are no silly questions, only a lack of questions. (We need more questions!) Like the Proaction ary Principle, the Precaution ary Principle is a
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 31, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wayne Radinsky wrote:

                      > Pardon me for asking another silly question, but why is the
                      > Precautionary Principle "anti-science"?

                      There are no silly questions, only a lack of questions. (We need more
                      questions!)

                      Like the "Proaction"ary Principle, the "Precaution"ary Principle is a
                      principle that can be applied to any domain of knowledge. So it really is
                      not anti-any domain. It is "how" this "precaution" principle is "applied"
                      to domains' inventions, innovations, explorations, discoveries and,
                      essentially, progress, that characterizes it as seemingly an "anti"
                      action. Because its "precaution," again, places the burden of proof on
                      innovation or progress, and because it is not a balanced, rational means of
                      assessing data it is an excellent tool to manipulate information and reasoning.

                      > Science is a process for testing hypothesises to see what is true
                      > about the world. What does that have to do with the Precautionary
                      > Principle?

                      When science and the technologies such as biotechnologies (cloning, stem
                      cells, genetic engineering, etc.) are brought into the public arena,
                      governing, rule-making policies are developed to oversee the R&D and use of
                      these new technologies. Different groups of lobbyists, policy-makers, etc.
                      represent different ideological, philosophical, and religious worldviews
                      and each groups will use what they can to convince the political
                      representatives and the voting public to agree with them.

                      Without a balanced means to understand the risks of emergent technologies,
                      it becomes difficult to understand the technologies' strengths vs. their
                      weaknesses. That is why a balanced measure for assessing the risks vs. the
                      benefits is essential. Thus, the "Proaction"ary Principle is a means for
                      doing this.

                      Best wishes,
                      Natasha

                      <http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
                      Design Media Artist - Futurist
                      PhD Candidate,
                      <http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary
                      Collegium
                      Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy
                      <http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
                      Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
                      Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

                      If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
                      then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
                      circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
                      perspective. - Buckminster Fuller




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Natasha Vita-More
                      ... The Precautionary Principle is being used as the measuring methodology for which the conservative right is basing its assessment and judgement on emergent
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 31, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 07:43 PM 1/25/2007, Wayne wrote:

                        >Is this something like the "Precautionary Principle"? I once heard an
                        >hour-long debate about it, and at the end, I had absolutely no idea
                        >what the "Precautionary Principle" was.

                        The Precautionary Principle is being used as the measuring methodology for
                        which the conservative right is basing its assessment and judgement on
                        emergent technologies. It is an unbalanced measure because it
                        unequivocally places the burden of proof on the innovative technology to
                        prove itself approximately 100% successful in order for it to be supported
                        and employed into society. There is certainly a gray area herein, but most
                        importantly it is an unbalanced measure being "used" to stunt technological
                        growth.

                        A "balanced" measure designed to offer an alternative to this severe
                        measure is the "Proactionary Principle" which is designed to look at both
                        sides of the coin: (1) what could the technology do to advance, assist,
                        and improve conditions and (2) what are the potential for dangers of the
                        technology. Herein the assessment is to weight both sides and then to make
                        a decision as to whether the technology ought to be developed, supported
                        and employed by humanity/government/industry/individuals.

                        Because of emergent and the accelerating rate of technology and many
                        policy-makers being unfamiliar with technology, per se and generally how to
                        asses the future, this principle is immensely important to know about and
                        support (me thinks).

                        >It even occured to me that trying to follow "X Principle" is
                        >impossible because no 2 people have the same concept of what X means
                        >in their brain. No?

                        I don't think so. Rules and regulations are inflexible unless legal action
                        is taken to adjust them, which takes time and money. It is far better to
                        develop literature and other means for people to learn about what is
                        happening in their world and how the rules and regulations are developed
                        and adhered to. In other words, If the policy-makers are biased about
                        progress and technologies it can and does hinder the growth and development
                        of society and its people. The Proactionary Principle addresses
                        this. Here is some literature. (Max has been writing a book on it.)

                        http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm

                        http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.htm

                        http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000113.php

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactionary_Principle

                        Best wishes,

                        Natasha

                        <http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
                        Design Media Artist - Futurist
                        PhD Candidate,
                        <http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273>Planetary
                        Collegium
                        Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy
                        <http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
                        Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
                        Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

                        If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle,
                        then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the
                        circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system
                        perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.