The economy is " the science which studies human behavior in relation to the objectives and limited resources at its disposal, which have alternative uses " (Lionel Robbins).
Being in the report for facing the men, the science of economics has to do essentially with the ethics, values, and it is not, as it wants a certain wisdom, two very different things and divergent. But the very notion of "value" would be difficult to understand, if we lived in a world where there was identity between what we want and what we can do: it is the scarcity of means at our disposal (in the definition above), or the finiteness of human condition, which forces us to make choices, sometimes painful, including a course of action and another.
Here comes into play, then the other side of economics, the more technical: The identification of the ends, which are actually achievable, and how to achieve them? how to decide between alternative plans of action? Traditional tools implemented are those of the calculation probability of the risk assessment, and analysis in terms of cost and benefits of any plan of action. Tools still valid, being simply the instruments of our rationality. Would deprive us give up our right to trial and decision to passively surrender to the forces of irrationality.
why I'm a bit 'skeptical whenever I hear the need for updating our decision-making procedures to the new global challenges we face, particularly in relation to environmental issues. It all began, I think, Hans Jonas, and his "principle of responsibility." Citing Wikipedia , in fact,
JonasAccording to this new horizon disturbing that human action has become, thanks to modern technology must be a new ethical theory that can be part of this horizon to assess the possible catastrophic consequences of the action of ' Man in the era of high technology is to involve the entire biosphere.
Why? It is one thing to say that those who have much power must be especially attentive to the consequences of his actions with respect to those counts for little, but another thing to say that there are two different ethical theories, one that goes well in certain circumstances, and another da vestire nelle grandi occasioni. L'etica è universale.
Questa nuova e necessaria etica deve radicarsi nella chiara visione di ciò che è in gioco come conseguenza del progresso tecnologico e deve utilizzare la paura suscitata dalle sue possibilità “quasi escatologiche” per la formulazione di un “principio euristico” “capace di proibire certi 'esperimenti' di cui è capace la tecnologia”.
Fondare un'etica cosmica basata sul “dovere della paura” rispetto ai possibili esiti catastrofici delle nostre azioni e sul “coraggio della responsabilità” è a necessary step to address and seek a political solution to the great problems of this: overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, energy problem and environmental problem
Warning: this ball is pulled in "fear". Fear is a feeling, an emotion. Legitimate and sometimes sacred, but it is a bit 'strange that you want to create an ethical theory of liability on the basis not of reason but of feeling of fear? And the great problems of the present, not only those that appear to us precisely because of this? It has always been characteristic of human thought to conceive of his time as a special and unique compared all the others, but it really makes sense to say that the problems faced by previous generations were small and insignificant in comparison to ours?
philosopher Hans Jonas is a certain level (it seems), a student of Heidegger. But his principle of responsibility, which already seems quite problematic, then it has evolved in environmental thinking, in one of the most destructive weapons ever conceived rhetoric, the so-called "precautionary principle", the real mantra of all fuffari no -global-environmentalists in the world.
There is no unambiguous definition of the precautionary principle (or, indeed, there may be), but basically Action is the rule that tells us of the unknown is always better to go back. For example, in the case of GMOs, says that should not be legalized and to market them as long as there is any doubt that may be hazardous to health or the environment. That is, we should not ever do that, period, because it is any reassurance from the front of the research will always be judged inadequate.
But the precautionary principle suffers from some ambiguity, and indeed is fundamentally contradictory, it is evident from the fact that is mentioned more often also recommend the opposite course of action. In the face of the unknown, always do everything what is necessary to solve any problem that might arise at any cost, as the feared event is considered unlikely. And this is the case with many of the addresses on the environment also adopted by governments, for example with regard to global warming.
The element common to the two opposing addresses, as we see, does not reside in any conceptual core, but is made from pure and simple "fear" immobilizing. Immobilizing him to cancel our rational ability to make real choices, and thus of living a genuine ethical dimension. A proponent of the precautionary principle might well be advised to build roofs for nostre abitazioni a prova di meteorite. La probabilità di un impatto è bassissima, certo, ma la paura di perdere le nostre vite è maggiore. Peccato che in tal modo ci condanneremmo alla certezza di un'esistenza vissuta in balia degli elementi atmosferici, e che senza tetto ci pioverebbe in casa. Peccato, per fare un esempio più concreto, che il denutrimento (attuale) di grandi strati della popolazione mondiale sia considerato insignificante rispetto all'eventualità che i prodotti Ogm possano rivelarsi lievemente allergenici, o chissà che altro.
Il riscaldamento globale è una realtà ormai accertata a livello scientifico, e di probabile origine antropica. Non c'è dubbio che si tratti a problem, the consequences potentially catastrophic. This does not mean, however, one should feel morally obliged to give its approval to any delusional plan proposed by environmentalists saving the planet and come out by international treaties. Not without assessing the feasibility of the plan, its costs, the actual ability to solve the problem, and possible alternatives. But that's what we are asked on behalf of the precautionary principle, even in the name of simple fear.
And based on public opinion campaigns that instead of presenting the scientific data in an objective and neutral, and it would be possible, rape the science (even allowing themselves well alter the data) in the name of political correctness that should leave no doubt where the good guys and bad guys might be confused in the eyes of public opinion but result in two distinct and opposing forces. Who does not agree, one who raises doubts is an egoist who wants to destroy the planet.
These are the considerations that tend to make me an eco-skeptic: I do not like moral blackmail. Fear can be healthy emotion, I said, or it may be an incentive to tackle the problems. But economics can not make an epistemological principle, as is being done with the precautionary principle. Not without giving up, in the name of goodness, to our status as moral agents and responsible. Good because stupid, good for timid and inert, it is never a good deal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment