"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. "
Whenever I hear this, I think of the desire to medicate and monitor loved ones and others based on 'likely to become' florid or impulsive or crazed.
I am understanding 'controlling to prevent' as just the same as the 'precautionary principle'. We'll act 'in case' or not act' in case' ... None of this seems very wise to me. It seems like preventing tomorrow, preventing risk, over-determining, clinging to what is known and now, disbelieving any knowledge greater than our collective own, ...
I'm not sure where to take this conversation - I'm not trying to deny global warming and the impact of humans on the environment ... There seem to me consequences that haven't been considered if there are too many precautions and too little risk.