PART 1
Precautionary principal Introduction
Definition
The precautionary principle traces its origins to the early 1970s in the German principle ‘Vorsorge’, or foresight, based on the belief that the society should seek to avoid environmental damage by careful forward planning. The ‘Vorsorgeprinzip’ was developed into a fundamental principle of German environmental law and invoked to justify the implementation of robust policies to tackle acid rain, global warming, and North Sea pollution. The precautionary principle then flourished in international statements of policy. On a national level, several countries have used the precautionary principle to guide their environmental and public health policy. In the United States e.g., the precautionary principle is not expressly mentioned in laws or policies. However, some laws have a precautionary nature, and the principle underpins much of the early environmental legislation in this country (The National Environmental Policy Act, The Clean Water Act, and The Endangered Species Act). It also is applied to social justice interests for equity visions, and in health and welfare applications
The precautionary principle is based on the adage that ‘it is better to be safe than sorry’. However, there is no universally accepted definition of the principle.
The precautionary principle is relevant to many issues, especially those of environment and public health, global warming or sharp climate change, extinction of species, the uncertain risks of nuclear power or geoengineering, the introduction of new and potentially harmful products into the environment that threaten biodiversity (e.g., genetically modified organisms), threats to public health due to new diseases or techniques (e.g., AIDS transmitted through blood transfusion), persistent or acute pollution (asbestos, endocrine disruptors, etc.), food safety (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), and other new bio-safety issues (e.g., artificial life and new molecules).
The Precautionary Principal is an underlying principle that has been almost universally adopted by policy makers at several levels. It often forms a basis for the concept of sustainability. It has been used in social justice and environmental problems, and especially in health and welfare decisions. It amounts to a new moral imperative. Interestingly it is fundamentally anti-science, although it claims science as its rational basis. However, science is not necessarily considered for the decision. It does not base public policy decisions on science for their justification, application or for validation. The basis is fear.
Futurists, politicians, environmentalists, and green policy makers have adapted this order of business and ethic all over the globe, in UN programs, and have applied it to all potential innovations, developments, technologies and risk assessments. With the COVID19 process it is the bottom line. The epidemiologists and media and medical recommendations for public policy, are secondary in consideration. Any risk is unacceptable.
In essence it means that even if the science is not there to prove the problem, or danger, we will act anyway to limit the “probable”.
Scientifically peer reviewed processes are exacting and cumbersome, and often counter intuitive. GIGO models are the rule, not the exception, that is why there is so much funding to correct misconceived models or blatant mistakes. In the Western world, and especially in the USA, ridicule in the public sphere and claims of class or racial bias, or ultra-rhetorical bigoted anti-bigot divisive propaganda and aggression are also very effective.
Assignment
Do you think this subjective approach to putting human interest and policy ahead of economic systems, or proven scientific is the new reality? Here is the assignment.
1.What is the Precautionary Principle?
2. Why is it important to understanding of the governmental responses to the (Global Warming/Climate Change) or COVID 19 policies?
3. Can you think of a different approach that would have been better?
4. Any other comments you want to make and a graphic.
PART 2
Refer to the PowerPoint (Attached). DO TWO analyses
1. Answer the questions, include any sources you used for your inquiry and a graphic in your response. ( 3-5 paragraphs Some questions you may ask….)
What is the Precautionary Principle? How did it come about? Who has embraced it? Is it rational? Why is it important? How does it affect the conceptualization of issues, and especially the role of science as a rational base for policy? How is it applied in current global policy? How does it affect environmental protection and health policy? What do you think? Is there another way to have approached this?
The key application or Question Assignment I want you to explore here is…. How might this concept of precautionary principle and exercising caution above all else, have influenced the (exaggerated) policy decisions to deal with.
2. Global warming, specifically research the COPS and the new Green agenda items to be mandated into the USA.
3. The COVID19 policies especially the progression toward mandatory vaccines? For the latter case, Specifically the lock down orders on entire populations, the tracking and the role of government and media.
Here are a couple of sources to get you started. Note the DW.de is the German equivalent to the BBC.com.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/europe-hitting-unvaccinated-fines-lockdowns-165838381.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097
PART 3 Geocache
1. What is the topic in both pics (below) and how this relates to human hubris and COVID19?
1. Look up the quote “there must be a pony in here somewhere” Relate it to your COVID19 or Global warming experience…. Make suitable or unsuitable comments, and find similar graphics
2. Who are Olivia Newton John and john Travolta? Why are they important? What was the movie Olivia Newton John starred in with John Travolta?)
3. Who are these powerful funding groups and what are their agendas: the Ford Foundation, Winrock Intl, the Tides, and McArthur Foundations.
