The Precautionary Principle calls for taking decisions early.  The
Precautionary Principle calls for taking decisions prior to having all
desirable information.  The Precautionary Principle calls for
prioritization of outcomes based on at least criteria:  [1] direction and
magnitude of outcome (e.g., big profit; small loss); [2] criticality of
outcome (e.g., continuum ranging from noticeable feed back loops generating
externalities to sine qua non consequences); and [3] reversibility of
outcome (e.g., death).

      The Precautionary Principle seeks to avoid penny wise and pound
foolish; or to implement a stich in time saves nine, and to recognize an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

      President Bush uses the Precautionary Principle (e.g., preemptive
war).  President Bush refuses to use the Precautionary Principle (e.g.,
Kyoto Treaty).  This is ordinary behavior by a human:  idiosyncratic
differential risk appraisal and reaction.  What ya scared of?

      _Will_ global warming be reversible when there is sufficient data to
assert with statistically significant confidence that there is or will be
global warming?  Similarly, will a terrorist attack be reversible without
reading your mail?  Pick your poison.

      One thing is certain.  Death is certain.  The real question is:
"Death of what?".  Death of "American"?  Death of the era of humans?  Death
of Earth?

      With respect to sine qua non, 9/11 was a poorly executed superb
asymmetric power gambit.  It was an hour too early and the wrong side of
the building if the goal was to remove the financial underpinning of global
capitalism.  That could equate with the Japanese mistake of not bombing the
oil storage facilities at Pearl Harbor, or might have been an on purpose
"mistake".  If the 9/11 "mistake" was on purpose, then that implies an
entirely different array of strategic goals and tactics for the enemies of
multinational corporate economic power and the personal freedom allies of
that corporate power.

      Personally, I see the feasible maximum magnitude of human impact as
fundamentally minute.  However, the scale of aggregated humanity can exceed
that necessary to disrupt the interaction of catalyst processes.  If a
catalyst process is within the reach of aggregated humanity, then humans
can end the era of humans.  Nuclear winter can do it, but not mere
repetitive explosions of nuclear weapons are unlikely to be sufficient.
Can humans cause global warming?  Certainly.  Have humans already caused
global warming?  Quite likely.  Is the global warming already caused plus
the global warming that will be caused prior to completion of the efforts
at reversal, in total, sufficient to end the era of humanity?  Feasible?,
yes.  Probable?, yes.  Certain?, not yet.

      I try to remember that it is feasible to have an ecology without an
economy, but it is not feasible to have an economy without an ecology.

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department        Editor, Journal of Legal
Economics
College of Business Administration        (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax (402)
554 - 3825
Roskens Hall 502                    www.AAEFE.org
University of Nebraska at Omaha           www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
Omaha  NE  68182                    http://nbdc.unomaha.edu/aaefe
[log in to unmask]
(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm