#120 - Let's Talk: The Precautionary Principle

One of the common divisions in our modern global societies is whether a community is resistant towards change and innovation or accepting of it. What do genetically modified food, children adopted by LGBT families, and abandoning coal mining for renewable energy have in common? They are all progressive plans that require a society that is open to new things; however, is accepting all things new necessarily the key to progress and life satisfaction? In this episode of Beyond the Present podcast Dan and Poujix discuss this issue in depth and explain why the optimum approach is the moderate one that is open to new things but is still rooted in the tried and true methods of the recent past.

 

Episode Transcript:

----more----

 

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

nations, world, conservative, approach, religious, tend, generally, terms, risk, wealth, impose, life, ideas, trump, people, europe, point, principle, precaution, traditions

SPEAKERS

Pouya LJ, Dan

 

Pouya LJ  00:09

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to yet another episode of beyond the present Podcast. I am as always joined here with Daniel Mulligan. How's it going down?

 

Dan  00:17

Edwin man, buddy, how are you going to be here with you for yet another great episode. And of course life is great. The world is gradually getting out of that crazy quarantine mood. And since you know, of course, we're now officially in summer.

 

00:31

So think

 

Dan  00:33

about the second way but for now we can actually breathe a little bit, go outside, go to the parks and even have business meetings and stuff while maintaining Of course, social distancing. So life seems a lot better now than it was like a month ago but for now we have to force remain hopeful and see what happens. The other Front Of course, we had a major protests following the death of George Floyd and the world is now expressing and condemning this action And I'm very happy about this matter of fact that this voice being heard, and all minorities around the world will now have their voice heard. So they can actually understand there's no place for racism in our modern world. And most recently, I heard that Joe Biden actually exceeded Trump in terms of his popularity. So now, as of now he's about 30%, popular, much higher than what Obama actually had a while back while Trump's dropped to 43. So basically, on the political front, on the business front, and on the social front, things seem a lot better, more positive, hopeful. And of course, it couldn't be any better right now, because now I'm feeling great. And of course, being here with you right now is just a great testament to that feeling and expression.

 

Pouya LJ  01:36

Appreciate that. Likewise, it's a it's a complimentary situation going on here. And yes, I think things are, again, if we don't jinx it right now, I'm not superstitious person, but you never know. So anywho. So, today's topic is not too distant from this conversation that we've been having until now. And that is about this thing called the precautionary principle. Which basically, I mean, in a nutshell, it means that if, you know you attack problems or or if you're unsure, you go with the most extreme precaution possible, and default to that status quo, essentially. And we're going to talk about the problems that can come up that actually there was a article motivating our conversation, which we're going to definitely put on the show notes people can read for themselves for their pleasure. However, we're gonna we're going to talk about that from our perspective. So what do you think about this, this principle and and what how do you look at this? Well,

 

Dan  02:43

I think before we actually express you know this to our audience, I think they should first know because you and I both we know what it means, but maybe our audience don't know. So right now, go ahead. First, tell our listeners a basic definition so they know what we're talking about here.

 

Pouya LJ  02:56

Of course, no, I definitely as I as I mentioned, so procrastinating is okay. I can actually I can bring a precise definition up here.

 

Dan  03:06

That's right, of course.

 

Pouya LJ  03:07

But in a nutshell, it means that you're, you're attacking problems from the point of view of being cautious. So okay, this is a this is the Google definition of it. The principal the distraction. Yes, the principle that the introduction of a new product or process could be also a legislature, whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown, should be resistant. It has mainly been used to prohibit the importation of genetically modified organism and food. Well, that's not just the thing we're talking about, but

 

Dan  03:40

just the GMOs as well. Yeah, absolutely. It's about being prepared, you know, having precautions for anything new and strange or not tested before try and but frankly, speaking, as you already you know, gave our listeners definition. As you probably know my attitude towards life, I believe in balance. So if you want to Create a lifestyle where you are resisting and you know, somehow going against the new, then there will be no progress. There'll be no development, there'll be no innovation. And I'm against that because the world needs to move forward. And if we're not moving forward, then automatically we go backwards and take a look right now the current world, you know, affairs right now, since we did not maintain our forward movement that was actually initiated. Now we are seeing in some parts of the world and gradually going back, they're going back to the values that we escaped from in the 20th century, and are now being repeated in the 21st. And this is, this goes back, I don't know two things like, you know, not caring about the environment. And making gold for example, I don't know coal mining a particular job again, despite the fact that there's history and and there now, there are nations around the world who have abandoned this completely, there are now two nations in the opinion that do not allow, for example, coal mining anymore right now, because of this, you know, forward momentum and these future orientation obviously, that we have obviously, we need to steps on new, B. Since at the same time, if you wonder, you know, animate everything and all the time, then there will be no sense of security, there'll be no sense of control over what's happening. And that's also chaotic. And as you probably know, I'm a fan of balance in all things. And, and, of course, as I mentioned, you really have to focus on, you know, creating that balanced approach in this situation. So am I against it, you know, trying to somehow prevent the new ideas to come in through? Of course, not because we need them without those, you know, there will be no moving forward. And if we don't move forward, we will automatically by default, go backwards, at the same time to allow everything right away. Probably not. There needs to be some, you know, research some testing before, you know, these things are actually gone mainstream. So as you probably already know, my preference, of course, there is a middle ground approach and a balanced one, basically.

 

Pouya LJ  05:55

Yes, exactly. And, well, of course, nobody expects to you know, I plan things and go go about them hey wire without any testing or anything but there's also a degree of risk taking that needs to be because ultimately there's nothing going to be absolute especially before trial and error you need some some degree of trial and error and some degree of it you can do in lab and you know make sure okay this is clearly crazy or this idea seems to be okay we don't know for sure we need to we need to go back and try and you know small scale and then see what happens. So, ultimately lots of things that we do are basically experiments and solve some of them are you know, scientific experiments on social experiments etc. And like, this whole democracy is a really a or or even or even Marcus ideas or communism, whatever all of these are. theories. Nobody tested them as lab and prove that they 100% word. At some point, we just accept that. Okay, let's give this thing a try. That's how, as you mentioned, progress comes about. So now, let's talk about. So I think the benefits are quite clear of tests of research or, you know, making sure everything works. Well. Now, let's talk about the downsides of doing it too much. What are you thinking? What are your points of view and when this thing is overdone, then the balance goes out the window, and we're overdoing it and real over concern? And what could go wrong? If we are?

 

Dan  07:29

Well? That's a great question. And, of course, if you you know, take a look at the world right now, we do have certain nations that are extremely on the side of, you know, innovation and trying new things and taking those kind of risks. A clear example of that, if you just take a look, you know, the COVID-19 crisis, you saw how, for example, Sweden, decided to actually go on the experiment of testing this, and they actually did not impose any of the restrictions that almost every other country was imposing on their citizens. They allowed everything to live allowed life to basically go on as usual, with some force levels of precaution, but not so as much as the other nations. And then we had, of course, nations that went on complete lockdown. Think of like China, for example, or a few other nations who impose very strict limitations on their citizens. And of course, you can see the results. In the end, if you take a look at it. Both extreme approaches, from my point of view, were not the most successful if you were unethical, like, you know, all the results that have come so far, in terms of the rate of fatality in terms of the actual life satisfaction and economic damage. Ironically, the best nation industry or one of the best nations who truly handle this well, was neither Sweden nor United States or China, it was actually Germany, Germany came as one of the top nations in terms of how well they handle it, how their medical system actually handle the situation, how much restrictions on their people how soon they got it out, actually, Germany was on First Nations in Europe that actually opened its theaters and opened basically its cultural centers long before all the nations rationally Gradually opening their businesses. So this showed a great, you know, balanced approach to this issue. And a while Sweden did not impose any restrictions on their people. And they wanted to stick to this, you know, new liberal, basically attitude towards life, they did a lot, you know, bottom line as of today, they did suffer a higher fatality rate. And then, of course, the other members of the European Union. And of course, the US story was not caring at all, seeing what Trump did now led to the US being the number one hazard in the world. So, because of this, I'm a fan of, you know, looking at the examples, because the best way to know which approach works, we call this modeling, you know, in NLP and various basically schools of thought modeling, not the career modeling. As you know, for example, a hot girl going for a catwalk but like modeling the behavior of someone who has achieved the kind of success that you have achieved is the foundation for true success that anybody can actually replicate. And just a simple Example, when it comes to just handling the, you know, the COVID-19 crisis shows that by looking at which countries got the best results, we can then somehow repeat that behavior to get the same results. This was of course about, you know, the COVID-19 crisis. How about other areas economically, again? Well, Germany perhaps is was one of the best nations in this regard was also the best in terms of state economy and entrepreneurship, probably not one of the best in Europe, for sure, but not globally. For that we have other nations who exceed this, us being a force, mainly one of them. So the point is this in all areas of life, we have an opportunity here we can look at patterns of excellence in terms of their decisions. And if you look at those your oftentime realize most of those nations or groups that are getting the best results are opting for that, you know, basically minded approach. Why is that because both extremes will have problems. So let's go to the fundamental issue here. Whether it is to be extremely conservative and reject all new ideas. I mean, we all probably know some of these people that are select Well, I got my bias That's the only book I ever need to read for the rest of my life. So these are like great examples of those who will fall behind, many of whom are probably are Trump voters. And this is a great example of going backwards, closing your mind and not paying any attention. On the other hand, I'm also not a fan of being extremely open to every new idea, we have to experiment things. And I think gradually we have to towards them. So right now we are seeing this as in a during the same period where Trump basically is trying to impose, you know, terrorists on international business and promoting, I don't know, coal mining in the US, we are seeing basically a lot of changes in all across Europe, which is right now, as of today, I find European Union to be you know, perhaps a leader in terms of futurism, which is why I actually made, you know, my company's headquarters for Maldon enterprises, basically in, you know, the European Union and is now forced to move to Berlin, Germany, because I wanted to be a part of that formula. Because I, you know, our podcasts called Beyond the present. So you and I both you're a physicist, and we care about the future. We want things to be better than the past. We want progress. And of course, that's why I feel like you're seeing that Europe. Now, I'm not saying that the European approach towards progress isn't sort of the best approach. And there are some tips for dealing with strain as we saw, you know, in this crisis that just happened to us. I believe that when you when you look at, you know, the issue of progress, you need to accept certain degrees of risk, and not all risks will necessarily pay off. But if you're not willing to take that risk, you will automatically reject change, you will reject progress, and that's not good. So, while you should not necessarily try everything new, because by doing so, perhaps you will have to lose a lot. At the same time. Being resistant towards any change just proves your close mindedness. At the same time, of course, we discussed earlier about this matter, which is why I'm a huge fan of embracing global Islam as a means of not only fighting racism, actually appreciating what it means to be more moderates what it means to be a bit more open minded, and to not resist every change the moment we're here to actually let the voice be heard and give it some positive consideration before we decide to say yes or no to that new pattern, basically.

 

Pouya LJ  13:21

Yeah, absolutely. That makes a lot of sense. And Okay, so now. So I have two questions. I think their follow up, one is follow up with the other but so what makes what do you think makes a person inherently conservative or more risk risk risk taking? And if you are one or the other, and you want to hit the balance, what can you do to get there? How can you? Wow, I mean, it's really a hard hard thing to say. Because if you really have that mindset, the change is very hard for both cases, I suppose. Maybe that's rare for the risk taking kind of because he's already trying different ideas, but generally speaking, okay first, well what makes some person more risk averse or risk taker? And how can one change themselves about that?

 

Dan  14:11

Fantastic, great point. And the first question of course, what are the you know, the factors determining whether we are going to be more resistant towards it or more accepting of it, there are certain elements that tends to make us more conservative by default. First of course, being religion. So, if you are a religious person, therefore, you must adhere to your, to your religious principles. So, generally secular people are a lot more open minded to and they're open to new experiences, whether it is to try even like, no genetic modification than those who are religious or believer. So, religion by default, if you find nations, like the US, which is pretty religious, compared to most other, you know, developed nations, you see a higher degree of conservatism. So things like abortion, things like gay marriage seem like oh my gosh, way out at the same time where, for example, European nations are openly promoting, for example, gay couples having children. And we are seeing them in their sitcoms, where they because, of course, I tend to, you know, to improve my foreign languages, I tend to watch a lot of European shows, to practice my languages. And it seemed like in Europe, it's very common for them to demonstrate like, for example, lesbian couples where a son comes home and says, Hey, Mom, Hey, mom to two girls. And that's a family. But such a thing probably will cause a lot of taboos among the conservative Americans if that were to become a very major show, for example, right. So because of this, I believe that religion is one of those factors that tends to, you know, make a person more conservative. The other element, of course, is wealth, again, the use of also the wealthiest nation on Earth. And, unfortunately, it's not just about nations, it's about individuals as people become wealthier themselves as their net worth goes higher. I have seen among my own contacts I've seen in my own life as well as you basically as your net worth and your wealth increases over time, you generally tend to To be more conservative to because now all of a sudden, you don't want to lose your money. So you're gonna be a lot more careful to keep doing what has worked to generate more wealth. So generally among business, basically communities, those who tend to be focused on wealth, entrepreneurship, we see higher degrees of basically conservatism among those who are rather less capitalistic in nature, if you will, and more on the side of socialism. The third element, of course, is age, which is, of course, linked again to both wealth and religion. As we know, the higher the age, the likelihood that you will be wealthier or more religious. So as you get older, you tend to be a lot more conservative, because you've been around, you know, let's say a lot longer than a 19 year old or a five year old. So you tend to be a lot more grounded and rooted in your beliefs like I've seen the world and this is the way it is. So influencing somebody who is for example, I don't know 19 years old will be a lot different than somebody who was I don't know 75 right. And because of this, you need to understand that age itself. is a major factor. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the culture. certain cultures by nature, allow open mindedness and allow experimentation. Again, we see this mainly in Europe right now. Whereas some other cultures, or on the more traditional side, be it for example, China beat south, for example, East Asia, being the Middle East and Islamic nations, you see, of course, a lot more tendency towards, you know, accepting traditions and traditions and religions are not the same things, they tend to have a lot in common, but traditions could be quite separate could be very non religious, as we see it, for example, in China. So, these four elements of religion, wealth, age and tradition tend to make people more conservative and less open minded. Now, I'm not saying these are bad because they definitely are not examples are bound we can know that that there's nothing wrong inherently wrong with being wealthier or aging or having traditions or simply having a you know, a specific Basically religious belief, this, these are all fine and everybody's right to pursue their, you know, goals. But generally speaking, when you look at the opposite of you know the exact opposite. So, as we mentioned religion so those who are more secular, those who are generally more middle class, or upper middle class or lower class, and those who are generally on the side of basically, let's say modernity and modernism rather than tradition, of course, generally, they tend to have, let's say, higher level of openness towards new experiences and trying new things. And once you put it all together, you realize that it's best, of course, to opt for something in the middle, because nobody wants to certainly be go bankrupt, because they're trying new things all the time. And holding on to your millions and just rejecting the facts also, is not good, because in the long term, it'll actually harm the future generations. Think of those, you know, billionaires who are now denying global warming for example, they will definitely Maybe they will enjoy their you know, money but their grandchildren probably won't. And these are the facts that I think we have to consider and have to ask ourselves, where am I on this scale of religion, wealth, age? And basically, culture? Am I do I think of myself to be basically more religious or less religious? Do I think myself to be older or younger, within myself to be basically a middle class or more like the upper class? Or do I think I must be more traditional or more modern and this will then determine, of course, your initial position.

 

Pouya LJ  19:31

Absolutely makes a lot of sense. And so I think we're, we've covered a lot here and we're coming to the end of the show. So I want to give you the time at the end of the show to either you know, review things for for us or basically sum it up or if there's anything missing that you want to talk about, go ahead.

 

Dan  19:49

Very well, but before actually, I go for the, you know, the whole thing because I would like to, you know, summarize the point to yourself projects, to which guild if you will, do you belong or are you in the middle of Like, what is your own perspective here?

 

20:02

Yeah, I think I find myself a tad more on the risk taker side, but I am

 

Pouya LJ  20:10

true, we're very much towards the center. But, man, it's very

 

Dan  20:14

Yeah, and this exactly should be all of our goals. I mean, like right now, once you look at your goals right now, all of your goals should be mainly centered on basically this balance in the middle basically. And you of course, you have all the characteristics of being more on the right side. That is your, of course young, you tend to basically from my point of view, be more on the, let's say, open minded side more on the secondary side, you of course have that approach of, you know, embracing, embracing modernity. You're an immigrant yourself, you've moved, you've moved around the world. And obviously, you know, you are an academician and you're focused on your work and your studies. So this shows why you are a more balanced individual. And of course, the same applies to me as well because we obviously share the same beliefs here. But for those of our listeners who find themselves on the extremes of conservatism or basically open mindedness, as we just mentioned, I think the best approach is in the middle somewhere, whether you are religious or secular, whether you are older young, whether you are extremely wealthy, or just getting started, or whether you come from a, you know, very traditional background, or from a modern background, you want to find that middle because that's where the best stuff is basically. And that was exactly we talked about today projects, we talked about how we can actually understand the principles, this precautionary approach towards, you know, making decisions or embracing new things. And we discussed that there are two major approaches those who support it, those who are more on the conservative side, who tend to reject new ideas, or they are very skeptical of them. And then we have those who are embracing them all the time and without any problem. And we discussed their features. We mentioned four elements that determine whether or not you'll be on either side. And those four were of course, your age, your wealth, your basically Culture and background with traditional or modern? And of course, it comes down to your religious beliefs. Are you more religious? Or are you more secular? And once you put it all together, you realize it doesn't really matter where you come from, it doesn't matter if you go to church every Sunday, or if you perhaps, I don't know, spend most of your time, I don't know, just on the couch, enjoying a, let's say, the TV series on Netflix, and just having a good time and perhaps doing some pot every now and then what really matters is how can both sides bring themselves to that center, that sweet spot in the middle, where they do have certain beliefs that they hold to be true. But at the same time, they're always willing to reconsider their beliefs, should they prove false or wrong? And of course, that's what we are promoting here on our podcast. And, of course, our listeners will listen to that as well.

 

Pouya LJ  22:48

Excellent, no, that makes a lot of sense. And thank you for joining us today. As always,

 

Dan  22:53

my pleasure, buddy, and thank you for a great topic and great, all the great questions you asked, actually.

 

Pouya LJ  22:57

Oh, I appreciate it. Thank you all the time. And listeners for joining us for yet another episode. I hope you enjoyed this. Feel free to give your topics that you want us to hear us talk about or you want to, you know, as the research about because obviously not all of the topics that you might introduce, we might not be familiar with them, but we do all of our best to research and talk about them as best as we could. And until a later episode, good luck.