Individual Inquiry 3: Waffle House is for food, not policy

If we could see the future, the world would be a much better place. If a man (or woman) could see the results of his actions, then how often would politicians pass un-executable laws, or engineers build useless buildings, or a boss telling you to do something just for you to have to change it later? My guess is, they wouldn’t. But, foregoing the fact this world doesn’t exist, the biggest problem with this future seeing is the same as the problem that the precautionary principle gives us: that it gives inaction as a viable option for what to do in crises, and puts too much focus on finding the perfect solution instead of pursuing a doable one. As Shellenberger and Nordhaus describe the precautionary principle, “long evoked by greens to argue against any innovation unless it can be proven 100% safe,” a picture is already being created in my mind of a group of people blathering on about this possibility and that outcome, with no real solution reached. But life isn’t breakfast, so no waffles!

Now, I’m a pretty cynical person, but in this case, I feel my position is well supported. The main concept of the precautionary principle is that consequences of actions in complex systems are often unpredictable and irreversible and concludes that such actions should generally be opposed (Wikipedia, proactionary principle). Well, surprise, surprise, the era we live in (“late industrialism”) is characterized by complexity, according to Kim Furtun. Sounds like this principle isn’t off to a good start. Bruno Latour stated the principle was created so that “even in the absence of scientific certainty, decisions could be made.” If this was true, that would be great, but it’s not. Even Latour acknowledges that its implementation has not been perfect, and I would argue, doesn’t really help. It still allows inaction to be a possibility. Teddy Roosevelt has the best way of expressing my feelings on inaction: “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”

Let me present a walkthrough of the flaws I find using a personal favorite subject of mine: geoengineering. I don’t like geoengineering, and I don’t want it to be implemented. People following the precautionary principle also more than likely don’t want to see geoengineering implemented. Yeah! We agree. We probably even have the same reasons for why it shouldn’t be done, in that there is no way of proving that it is safe without actually falling through with the procedures. The precautionary principle says that since we don’t know, we will not do anything about until more knowledge from the scientific community comes in. I think that it is a stupid idea to go and deliberately mess with the entire earth’s energy system. In my view, geoengineering is off the table. I don’t want to think about, and I will boldly detract any person who attempts to champion it towards me. But the proponents of the principle will stand around like blithering idiots, trusting in the moral superiority of their Latin oath Primum non nocere: First, do no harm. I’ll let SpongeBob show why this doesn’t work.

Now then, we need to look for a new decision making guideline. Unfortunately, there is no “don’t be stupid” principle. Even if there was, there would still be countless debates over whether or not it was being implemented correctly or if something should change about it or pedantic discussions about what “stupid” means. The late Theodore Roosevelt again lends his voice to what I believe is solid advice: “the only man who never makes mistakes is the man who never does anything.” So we must understand that nothing we can do to stop climate change, or increase biodiversity, or act in any a number of subjects, is going to turn out 100% every time. It is wishful thinking to believe it will turn out that well anytime. “To err is to human” as Alexander Pope says, and with those errors comes responsibility. Latour says to love our monsters, “accepting it as the normal duty of continuing to care for unwanted consequences” (emphasis his). So, in essence, the principle I would use is that you go and make a decision and stick with it, accepting all consequences from your actions, but never apologizing for being decisive. Mistakes will be made, and will have to be fixed, but leaders are noted for their decisiveness, and as such we must start extolling that virtue.

Tl;dr: Go make a decision. Stick to your guns. Be a (figuratively) man.