Jump to content
Ankur

Does anyone actually argue PP anymore?

Recommended Posts

PP = Precautionary principle

 

Thinking about writing a nice turn to thus absurd line of reasoning... just wondering whether its a waste of my time or not.

 

I dont know where this should go, so I lumped it in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the real world, sure, those wacky Europeans and Candians use the precautionary principle in environmental law -- for example, in regulating pesticides. Can't put new pesticides on the market unless they're proven safe. Unlike here, where anything can go into commerce until it's proven UNsafe. And it's a soft law principle of international environmental law, which means that lip service is paid (if nothing else).

 

In the real-world US -- heck no. As a New York Times article a number of years ago said:

It doesn't sound like a revolutionary idea. Indeed, it sounds like common sense: better safe than sorry; look before you leap. But, in fact, the precautionary principle poses a radical challenge to business as usual in a modern, capitalist, technological civilization. As things stand, whenever questions are raised about the safety of, say, antibiotics in livestock feed, not until someone finds the smoking gun can anything be done about it. When President Bush earlier this year challenged the Clinton administration's tougher standards for arsenic levels in drinking water, he did it on the grounds that ''the science isn't in yet.'' (He subsequently relented.) The problem very often is that long before the science does come in, the harm has already been done. And once a technology has entered the marketplace, the burden of bringing in that science typically falls on the public rather than on the companies selling it.

 

If introduced into American law, the precautionary principle would fundamentally shift the burden of proof. The presumptions that flow from the scientific uncertainty surrounding so many new technologies would no longer automatically operate in industry's favor. Scientific uncertainty would no longer argue for freedom of action but for precaution and alternatives.

And it's a darn good thing we didn't apply the precautionary principle to the emission of greenhouse gases, because think of all of those Hummers that wouldn't have the freedom of the road. What could be more important. Certainly not polar bears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about debate. I am not writing 'turns' for the American government. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PP = Precautionary principle

 

Thinking about writing a nice turn to thus absurd line of reasoning... just wondering whether its a waste of my time or not.

 

I dont know where this should go, so I lumped it in Africa.

 

The only time i've seen the precautionary principle used is with abortion bad arguments against the gag rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PP = Precautionary principle

 

Thinking about writing a nice turn to thus absurd line of reasoning... just wondering whether its a waste of my time or not.

 

I dont know where this should go, so I lumped it in Africa.

 

exactly what is precautionary principle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen it used as terminal/ethical defense against DDT use in Malaria Aff's. But it was just a blip presented during a few seconds of the 1NC or a 2NC attempt at a case debate. Yet to see a good 2NR where the "PP" was used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The precautionary principle is usually the argument negs are making when they say there's a "chance of a link" on a disad where the link has been asserted but not proven. They are trying to force the aff to disprove the link by arguing that huge impacts shift the burden of proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The precautionary principle is usually the argument negs are making when they say there's a "chance of a link" on a disad where the link has been asserted but not proven. They are trying to force the aff to disprove the link by arguing that huge impacts shift the burden of proof.

 

so precautionary principle is the basis for the risk of the DA argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not always, but usually when the neg is arguing there is a "chance of a link," the neg is effectively asserting the precautionary principle in their impact weighing.

 

Neg's line of reasoning:

* It is technically possible for plan --> X. There is little evidence demonstrating a direct cause-effect relationship or that such a scenario is remotely likely, but it is still possible.

* Since X is so bad, the aff must demonstrate that the chance of such a chain of events is zero. Otherwise, don't do plan.

 

This is, effectively, the precautionary principle. It shifts the burden of proof to the aff, making it the aff's duty to disprove the disad link rather than the neg's duty to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically it's a way to get a really bad link to a really big impact? Is this something that the neg would be forced into going for due to lack of a link, or would it be built into the shell and advocated out of the 1NC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think "better safe than sorry".

 

AKA the Bush doctrine of preemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are pretty good criticisms of the precautionary principle in the pro-ddt lit ive cut

 

also, the global warming debate is pretty full of these kinds of articles as well

 

i dont know how you just, turn the precautionary principle though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the rhetoric of PP encourages the magnification of improbable impacts to a level which trumps real impacts (which is what the neg would be claiming) and permits policymakers to overlook real, proven implications. in dismissing the value of the real in favor of the unreal, we ignore solutions that would have saved us from near certain annhilation.

 

and couple that with risk-management. and some bits on how introducing PP to american policymaking is not advisable. its rescher-esque analysis. while redrafting my framework, i have a couple of non-rescher cards that i came across that were pretty decent and when paired would provide potent offense against PP frameworks.

 

i mean, its not really a turn per se... but its some firepower against it which isnt merely 'policy paralysis'

 

and the cards are specific to energy and healthcare.... so... it would be useful for next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

precautionary principle is good for scarcity advantages. even if we don't know what the exact carrying capacity is, we know we shouldn't risk it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...