The Precautionary Principle (with application to the Genetic Modification of Organisms) suggests that GMOs pose a “ruin” problem, “in which a system is at risk of total failure”. Taleb and colleagues believe that the risks from GMOs, even if small, can mount up and spread because our agricultural and natural systems are globally connected. So even though each risk may be “small and reasonable”, they “accumulate inevitably to certain irreversible harm.” Taleb et.al. say these potential threats pose the “risk of global harm”. Not just local harm, which we can live with, but global.
They argue that these characteristics warrant a strong Precautionary Principle approach, essentially a ban on GMOs, at least while much more research is done.
Tag Archives: precautionary principle
Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin, Says Black Swan Author — The Physics arXiv Blog
Taleb and co focus on two examples. The first is nuclear energy. They point out that many people are justifiably concerned about the risk associated with nuclear energy. Scientists are well aware of the harm that can be caused by radiation release, core meltdown and the disposal of radioactive waste and these risks have been studied extensively.
While the potential harm from a nuclear accident can be large, it is generally scale dependent and far from global. So when it comes to making decisions about whether to use nuclear energy on a local scale, the risks involved can be managed using appropriate safety measures that have been carefully considered.
Taleb and co contrast this to the case of genetically modified organisms. They argue that the risk from genetically modified organisms is a potential for widespread impact on the ecosystem and widespread impact on human health. In other words, it is scale independent.
Finally, soon after the posting of the Precautionary Principle paper on ArXiv…
Finally, soon after the posting of the Precautionary Principle paper on ArXiv, the debate on GMOs is starting — and the (rigorous) physics community is getting the point. This summary is from the ArXiv blog. They overhype my role in the paper and downplay that of others, Rupert Read and Yaneer Bar Yam.
https://medium.com/…/genetically-modified-organisms-risk-gl…
Experts have severely underestimated the risks of genetically modified food, says a group of researchers lead by Nassim …
via Finally, soon after the posting of the… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Ruin is vastly more affected by noise than by the potential benefits or the signal
This picture show the effects of the information ratio (that is, benefits/uncertainty or signal/noise) on ruin; ruin is vastly more affected by noise than by the potential benefits or the signal.
(Continuing the previous post).
The Precautionary Principle paper is here
https://docs.google.com/file/d/ 0B8nhAlfIk3QIbGFzOXF5UUN3N2 c/edit?pli=1
The previous post has not been well digested as people still argued in about “benefits” not realizing the relation (many who did not seem to have read PP and repeated the Russian Roulette fallacy were zapped). Further, it looks like people are still mistaken about the concept behind our PP: it is NOT conservative, as it encourages (actually begs for) risk taking but confines it to safe domains.
Something people don’t get: more skepticism about climate models should lead to more “green”…
Something people don’t get: more skepticism about climate models should lead to more “green” ecological conservationist policies not more lax pro-pollution ones. Why? Simply, uncertainty about the models increases fragility (and thickens the left tail), no matter what the benefits can be in the right tail.
Added the section to the precautionary principle. Please discuss but stick to rigor and avoid buzzwords.https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIUUthSzJqUnRPbDg/edit
via Facebook.