– the conversation my previous post referred to has continued. Today, one of my correspondents posed a question to the group. He asked how can we have development and go forward if we are agonizing all the time (paralysis by analysis) about unintended consequences?
– Another correspondent answered that in the case of something like a new AIDS drug, the scientists involved would weigh the benefits predicted from the drug against the possible risks and if they found that the world’s population would benefit, they would proceed.
– I liked that formulation a lot and said so but I also thought that it missed the point of where most of our problems with unintended consequences derive from.
—————————
I believe the optimal solution to these quandaries, regarding unintended consequences and development, doesn’t lie within our civilization or within human behavior and goals as they are currently configured.
So long as human beings are blindly acting out their biological imperatives and so long as our civilization is predicated on the idea that its future health depends on its continuing growth, and so long as we operate under systems which put profits and personal gains above the good of people en masse, then the kinds of problems posed here seem, to me, inevitable.
In a possible future world wherein mankind has transcended its biological imperatives and reoriented to living within a fixed footprint on the Earth which is small enough to allow it to live within the planet’s renewable resources and thus establish a steady-state balance with the biosphere and allow the rest of biological evolution here on Earth to continue its progress without our interference,   in *that* world many of our quandaries would be diminished.
In that world, all major decisions would be critiqued first with regard to how well they would augment or degrade mankind’s consciously chosen primary goals (fixed footprint, live within the renewables, maintain a steady-state balance, don’t interfere with biological evolution). And I think it would also be a given that once those core criteria had been satisfied, then the next critique, on something new that was proposed for implementation, would be to consider the health and happiness of the human population. No longer in the top rank of our criteria for implementation would be the vested interests of the powerful, the profit margins of the corporations, or whether or not investors could continue to make good profits.
As human beings, we might feel this order is backwards (the idea that we would consider the biosphere first) – but then, that is a good deal of what’s wrong with today’s world, isn’t it? People and the implementation of their desires (read biological imperatives) are ascendant over everything and thus all balance is lost.
In our current world, our choices (or the choices made for us) are frequently a function of how well those choices support the expansionist goals of individuals, states or corporations and this is very destructive.
————————-
But, I have to stop and acknowledge here that this line of thought I’ve developed is truly distant and removed from the world as we now know it. And, while it may be interesting to think about, it isn’t likely to be manifested anytime soon and thus it is not immediately relevant to solving the kinds of questions M. and J. were discussing here.
M. wondered how science might deal with the kinds of concerns I raised about unintended consequences without stifling development of future products (“paralysis through analysis”).
J., discussing the development of a potential new AIDS related drug, replied that an analysis of the predicted benefits vs. the lack of any concrete information about potential adverse consequences, would probably lead scientists to conclude that developing the drug would be in the bests interest’s of the world’s population.
I couldn’t agree more with all of this. We have to go forward and solve the problems before us and the best analysis we can muster of risks vs. benefits to the world’s population is our best and only way to proceed.
But not all development decisions are driven by considerations of what’s best for human populations are they? Nor are they driven by long term concerns of what’s best for the biosphere (of which we are a part and a beneficiary).  No, many decisions we make are driven by profit and power motives; personal, state and corporate.
And this is where I think we need to look closely at the problem and drive the wedge.
All you said, J., is good. If only all decisions were actually made based on what’s best for the world’s population. But, sadly, it is not so.
So when I raise flags about unintended consequences, I am primarily referring to those consequences which derive from decisions focused on profit or power or other goals other than the good of the world’s population.
I know that in some drug trials, those primarily driven by science and compassion for people, there will still be unintended consequences occasionally – it’s unavoidable. But I trust that in these cases, we’ve done what we could to be careful and therefore the problems that do result, while regrettable, are unavoidable unless we want to simply stop all forward progress.
But when we develop chemicals for profit and strew them throughout our environments so that companies can provide good investment returns to their stock holders, I am less accepting of it.
When we set up limits on things like lead in our water and we set the lower acceptable level based on industry testimony as to what they can ‘afford’ to deal with rather than on what’s best for the human populations involved, I am less accepting of it.
Does Craig Venter genuinely want to develop custom bacteria for the good of the world’s populations? Or is there the promise of huge profits involved in these decisions? Does he want to create these bacteria so that the world will be safer and saner place for its inhabitants in the future? Or because he and his backers want to create tools which will allow the run-away expansion of the biochemical industry to go even faster for even bigger profits?
We need to recognize that to the extend that our decisions are driven in favor of profits and corporations, in favor of vested interests and the wealthy and NOT in favor of the health and welfare of the world’s population, to this extend, we are just asking for a major harvest of unintended consequences.
I’m not suggesting that we stop development and progress, I am strongly suggesting that until they are driven by the good of the wold’s population rather than profits, the population will suffer. And this is, to me, really the point of all this.