Turnabout is Fair Play: The Precautionary Principle and Environmentalism

As a resident know-it-all I am sometimes asked how I can indeed know it all. That’s not usually how the question is phrased; normally it starts something like, “You think you’re sooooo smart…”

But it’s not really about being smart, only about being able to recognize truth, and the Bible teaches us how sift for the truth in Deuteronomy 18:22:

When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him”

This section is particularly useful when you’re confronted with anyone claiming to be prophet (and yes, it does happen) but it is useful in a broader sense too. Here we learn that turnabout is fair play. The Bible contains a lot of prophecy and gives us a test to judge the truth of prophecy. So if the Bible is true it should be able to stand up to it’s own test, right? And it does, of course. (A book we review this issue, Skeptics Answered, has a chapter devoted to the subject of fulfilled prophecies.)

Turnabout and Environmentalism

Applying turnabout to the environmental movement can be done too. All we have to do is test the environmental movement’s guiding principle, the Precautionary Principle, against itself. Environmentalists will tell you this Principle is all about common sense, based on the idea that it is better to be safe than sorry. You see what the Principle really means in its application. In the global warming debate, for example, the data is confusing and inconclusive. Even while scientists are disputing whether man is the cause of the warming (or for that matter, whether there is warming) environmentalists are calling for radical cuts in the use of fossil fuels. We may not know if it will help or not, but better safe than sorry, right?

In her June 2000 article, Margaret Helder dealt with a few of the worries concerning genetically modified food (Facts, fables and your health). The Precautionary Principle is in evidence again when we hear the warnings against eating any of this food. These warnings aren’t based on any actual hazards. They are based on the idea that these foods haven’t been proven 100 per cent safe - an impossible task. Yet until we know these foods can’t possibly do any harm, we’d better not eat them because, after all, it is better to be safe than sorry.

The Principle is readily adaptable to any “unnatural” thing (whether it’s fuel, or genetically modified food or an insecticide) and demands that they be proven absolutely safe before they are used. But what happens when we apply this standard to the Principle itself. Has it been proven absolutely safe to use?

No. When the Precautionary Principle was applied to insecticides we ended up with a DDT ban. We weren’t sure if DDT was absolutely safe (and there was even some evidence it might be harmful to wildlife) so we got rid of it. But the absence of DDT led to an increase in mosquitoes and mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria, which started killing people by the millions.

The Principle, as it is being applied to genetically modified foods, is preventing us from developing foods that will feed more with fewer resources. How many are being harmed by a lack of food? And what would have happened if this Principle had been applied in years past? Potentially deadly vaccines, for illnesses like polio, would never have been approved.

Using turnabout we can see that the Principle doesn’t measure up to its own standard and that should leave us feeling highly skeptical about it, and anyone who uses it.

Using It the Right Way

The Precautionary Principle can be salvaged if we alter it just a bit. It is useful if we apply the “better safe than sorry” approach against the possible dangers of a technology, and it’s possible benefits (or the dangers of not using it). Take DDT as a historic example. It may cause harm to wildlife, but if it is banned many people might die from malaria. Using this balanced Precautionary Principle we can see that if we want to be safe, rather than sorry, then using DDT is the best decision.

Now if you hear someone preaching this type of precaution you’ll know his Principle actually measures up.

Reformed Perspective - July/August 2000

July/August 2000