The Precautionary Principle, GEICO Layoffs, Superlinear Returns, TIPS for Retirement, Rockefeller's advice to his son, Impact of GLP-1 agonists, Tesla's IPO, Conference call transcripts, and more ...
The problem with the Precautionary Principle is that claims about catastrophic impacts of technology have been legion and are explicitly made by assertion. That is why it is called the Precautionary Principle. There is no evidence one way or the other and ideological garbage is actually demonizing technologies by non-reasonable means. MA’s example of nuclear power is the best available to show why PP doesn’t work and can lead to the reverse outcome claimed. Instead of stopping a world apocalypse, the anti-nuke brigades prevented/prevent fundamental improvements in the life’s of billions of peoples suffering from energy poverty. Precautionary Principle is a kind of special pleading about risk. It would be the same in the markets if you simply said that there was a Precautionary Principle in investing and therefore you should be banned from trading in “sin” stocks, but the determination of what constitutes a “sin” is made up by a council wearing robes of fancy suits.
Taleb’s paper, linked to in the article, addresses misapplications of the PP. Andreessen paints with a broad brush and he is the one who makes an assertion without anything approaching Taleb’s rigor. Additionally, he uses emotional language (“enemies”, “immoral”). It is an unfortunate use of the straw man in an otherwise fine “manifesto”.
Regarding nuclear Taleb addresses this directly in the paper.
A debate between the two of them on the PP would be quite interesting.
Thanks for sharing the precautionary principle, this was the first time I’ve encountered it.
You may enjoy Brian Arthur’s The Nature of Technology...
The problem with the Precautionary Principle is that claims about catastrophic impacts of technology have been legion and are explicitly made by assertion. That is why it is called the Precautionary Principle. There is no evidence one way or the other and ideological garbage is actually demonizing technologies by non-reasonable means. MA’s example of nuclear power is the best available to show why PP doesn’t work and can lead to the reverse outcome claimed. Instead of stopping a world apocalypse, the anti-nuke brigades prevented/prevent fundamental improvements in the life’s of billions of peoples suffering from energy poverty. Precautionary Principle is a kind of special pleading about risk. It would be the same in the markets if you simply said that there was a Precautionary Principle in investing and therefore you should be banned from trading in “sin” stocks, but the determination of what constitutes a “sin” is made up by a council wearing robes of fancy suits.
Taleb’s paper, linked to in the article, addresses misapplications of the PP. Andreessen paints with a broad brush and he is the one who makes an assertion without anything approaching Taleb’s rigor. Additionally, he uses emotional language (“enemies”, “immoral”). It is an unfortunate use of the straw man in an otherwise fine “manifesto”.
Regarding nuclear Taleb addresses this directly in the paper.
A debate between the two of them on the PP would be quite interesting.
Here again is the link: https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf