The precautionary principle.

EfW-LZEUcAEeMjv

The precautionary principle comes from ecology, and the idea was that you do not bring in any new technology before you understand what the consequences are and you don’t wait for full scientific consensus before you proceed. All our actions as humans have unintended consequences. None of our interventions are uniform, and none do no harm.
Let’s consider these questions from a precautionary perspective as one of the mainstays of present-day culture, shall we.

In New Zealand, this is not theory. This principle has affected us: our current, second deliberate social distancing and economic contraction is driven by the precautionary principle

Reiterating, precaution has materialised in a legal principle called the precautionary principle (PP) and is defined as follows (Rio Summit of 1992 Declaration on Environment and Development):

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

The PP can be found in numerous national and international legislations and treaties.

Two primary reasons are generally put forward why we should be precautionary under conditions of uncertainty, and we now live in uncertain times, right?

First, we have to acknowledge that unforeseen consequences always follow from our actions; second, we need to acknowledge the vulnerability of the global ecosystems, human society, and ourselves.

New technologies need to be treated standard as a potential threat and can only be approved after extensive research and careful deliberation. As Late Lessons from Early Warnings: the Precautionary Principle 1896 – 2000 from the European Environment Agency (EEA) preaches about new technology: ‘their very novelty might be taken as a warning sign’.

The trouble with our current government, is that they are stupid and active: that is generally fixable by removing the relevant people from any leaership roles. But they have doubled down, and won’t listen to correction. That makes them arrogant, stupid and active: a toxic combination.

So, the precautionary notion to vaccinate the world population against SARS-CoV-2 as a means to dampen or eradicate this disease, is utterly counter to the precautionary understanding of new technology, even more so when a compulsory (precautionary) program is decreed.

Mandating vaccinations against COVID-19 fosters an unsolvable contradiction as…

… precaution, in its classical form, should focus on ADE and other risks of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (the new tech), which conversely might leave the pandemic ‘unchecked’, ‘requiring’ a lock-down of sorts by the fearful public/politicians, which is very bad for our economies and thus for our health, which requires a secondary precautionary response … ad infinitum.

So, the application of the PP could drive for bans/moratoria on technology -_vaccines_- and regulation -_immunisation programs_- that, at the same time, is mandated out of precaution -_vaccines; immunisation programs_.

As said so many times, the PP is a useless piece of rhetorical equipment that is primarily driven by fear, fear of death to be precise.

And that is not surprising. In our culture, we have embraced a minimalistic anthropology of human

There are other principles at stake here. Freedom. Dignity. What the government has shown, both here and in Australia, is that this precautionary principle will trump any rights we had. On Q & A yesterday a facebook rumour site was named, shamed, and the journalist said the people who put it upp should be sued.

But to no matter. Because the precautionar principle is irrational, and feeds into that other form of irrationality, eco-fascism.

Not one part of me can compute with the return from the overriding breach of fundamental human rights. As an offshore tax and trust lawyer I’m not one to preach for these rights but at the darkest of times the only law that matters are these fundamental laws stopping the state from overreaching. Ones that muppets right now seem happy that are ignored for the “greater good”. I say no, the whole point in having such law is that even in the darkest days they should be the basis for behaviour by the state. The real test of our approach to rights and freedoms therefore is now.

Today we will re-examine this again.

It’s now been five months since March when most of the western world decided to play along with locking us all down to “save lives”. I opine as I did then that it has done no such thing but destroyed them.

In camp one we have ever paranoid “immune compromised” nutcase person, parent and relative in the world. Five months later these people feel and are NO safer than they did and were in March. Covid is everywhere and every time they go outside or mix with people who go outside they are no safer. It is a virus, you cannot eradicate it. Period. Their perceived safety under this “elimination strategy” was always a fallacy only the truly most mentally ill can be forgiven for accepting.

In camp two there are the rest of us. Either not afraid of the virus or quite simply willing to not let it ruin our lives. We are branded selfish and horrible.

But FIVE months later what group really is?

I say camp one is and always has been but now they’ve lapped the field and bolting in.

Camp one are no safer than they were in March of contracting Covid and maybe being unlucky enough to die.

Camp two meanwhile have had their lives fucked to rack and ruin by the mantra “stay home save lives”.

Camp one people want those of us in camp two to suffer the indignity of locking down with them in some sort of insane solidarity PR campaign. We have done it before, I’m not prepared to keep doing it. Sorry. No.

This is not love. This is not kindness. This is not allowing people to do the best they can be. This is not preaching hope. This is fascism. It is a public realtions attempt to make us fear the unknown, set up a war against a virus, and to call all those who disagree untouchable, deplorable, not New Zealanders, white supremacists (which means anyone who disagrees with the font of all truth, the government)

What to do? Well, we are pretty much in Auckland where Melbourne is, without the cops beating up Karens (yet). Because of work and what I do, I have the COVID tracker app up: I think it is not going to work bether have only been 350K downloads in a country of 5 million and apparently even the minister of health has yet to install it.

The covernment has to stop talking “Love” (Aroha) and “Kindness”. They are not either. They are slaves to precautionary principle. Smile, and give them three bags of scorn.

2 thoughts on “The precautionary principle.

Comments are closed.