One of the strange things one observes in political discussions is the selective usage of the “precautionary principle.” For example, in general the modern Left tends to be sanguine about disruption of accepted social norms and institutions. It believes that society is robust and resilient enough to be periodically disrupted from its equilibrium. That human flourishing will persist. Similarly, many conservatives are skeptical about too great a concern about disruptions of the environmental equilibrium, believing that the earth is robust and human ingenuity inevitably will avert various natural resource catastrophes. Libertarians and some strains of cultural conservatism (the latter more prevalent outside of the United States) are consistent, but these are minority factions.
I thought of this when I saw this comment in response to my pointing out that liberals are out of step with scientists in regards to nuclear power:
I agree with Sam C. Even if there is a medically significant difference in the background radiation levels, there is every reason to believe that the levels at Cornwall will remain stable regardless of the state of the infrastructure and of the diligence (or lack thereof) of the people who live and work there.
And one suicide bomber or rogue missle could also significantly change things for the worse at Sellafield.
I responded that it seems everyone has their own private “One Percent Doctrine.” The objection above is logically coherent, but one wonders about the utility of a police-state as a solution to the terrorist threat? Of course most people would object based on the fact that such actions have other consequences which we might not enjoy. Similarly, the presence of nuclear power plants does entail a certain level of risk, but their lack is not without consequence either. Both action and inaction in many situations have consequences, but partisans tend to be very careful in terms of weight or noting the alternative outcomes based on normative or cultural preferences. Rationality and rationalization are generally found together.
If you are looking for liberal hypocrisy that puts them at odds with settled science – GM foods is better than nuclear power.
‘For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of “golden” rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all.’
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
I’m a liberal but this kind of hypocrisy kills me.
Creating GM rice high in Vitamin A, rather than teaching people about local minor crop / weed plants that are rich in the substance and that were forgotten about when the miracle of modern farming was brought to the area, is probably a waste of time and resources.
Wouldn’t it be better to encourage people to get away from farming methods that lead them to eat little else but rice, instead of trying to make the rice more nutritious and letting the poor dietary habits continue?