The Precautionary Principle:
The precautionary principle is a decision-making approach used when there is insufficient evidence to determine the safety or risk of an action. It involves taking cautious steps to avoid potential harm until more evidence is available. This principle is widely applied in daily life, often without conscious thought, such as avoiding drinking water from the floor even without evidence of contamination.

Scientism and Risk Management:
Scientism, the application of scientific methods and techniques to non-scientific domains, can lead to oversimplification and overlooking non-evidentiary risks. In risk management, experts often focus on the process and benefits of an action, neglecting the potential for tail risks or catastrophic outcomes. Professional knowledge and expertise may not equip individuals to grasp the full extent of risks, particularly those that are non-evidentiary in nature.

The Role of Experts in Risk Management:
Different professions have varying levels of expertise in understanding risk. Traders, for example, may have a better grasp of risk due to their training as risk managers. Neurobiologists and biologists may have a deep understanding of their field, but their claims of evidence may not always be reliable. Statisticians rank higher in assessing statistical evidence, but their expertise may not extend to understanding statistical risk.

Statistical Evidence and Tail Risks:
Statistical evidence provides information about the body of a distribution but does not account for tail events or extreme outcomes. Tail risks, or the risk of ruin, are distinct from knowledge and may increase even as knowledge expands. Statistical evidence alone cannot determine the consequences of an action if it is wrong, which is where risk management comes into play.

Hierarchy of Expertise in Risk Assessment:
Neurobiologists have expertise in biology but may have limited understanding of statistical evidence. Statisticians rank higher in assessing statistical evidence but may not fully grasp statistical risk. Experts in risk management, such as Nassim Nicholas Taleb, focus on left-tail events and the potential for catastrophic outcomes.

Fat Tails and Risk:
Fat tails are important because variation can be compressed, making it difficult to notice the risk present. In fat-tail domains, evidence of riskiness accumulates slowly, requiring more data to understand the situation. Fat-tail events can have monstrous consequences, making them particularly dangerous.

Fat Tails and Ecology:
Ecology is a fat-tailed domain due to its inherent variation. Crises in ecosystems are generally not systemic due to natural isolations and barriers. GMOs pose a potential threat to ecosystem stability by crossing natural barriers.

Fat Tails and Globalization:
Globalization has increased the potential for systemic crises, as events can now spread worldwide. The ecology is particularly vulnerable to globalization, as it erodes natural barriers and diversity.

Risk of Ruin:
Many people understand the risk of ruin and the need to sometimes take calculated risks. However, the precautionary principle emphasizes the importance of considering the potential for catastrophic outcomes.

Risk Accumulation:
Repeatedly taking risks, even if small, can lead to a 100% risk of ruin. Surviving a risk may lead to taking it again, increasing the likelihood of eventual failure.

The Turkey Problem:
The “turkey problem” illustrates this concept. A turkey experiences good treatment from the farmer every day, leading it to believe its life is safe. However, on Thanksgiving, the turkey is killed. Similarly, in finance, value at risk models may provide a false sense of security, leading to complacency and increased risk-taking.

Insurance as a Renewable Resource:
Ruin is not a renewable resource except in the case of insurance. Playing Russian roulette or engaging in risky activities repeatedly increases the probability of failure. The more often a risk is taken, the more likely it is to eventually result in ruin.

Example of Mountain Climbers:
Mountain climbers have a small probability of dying in any given climb. However, repeated climbing increases the risk of eventually dying due to the accumulation of risks.

Top-Down Planning and Scientism:
Nassim Taleb criticizes top-down social planning and scientism, the unscientific use of science. He argues that complex systems are unpredictable and that forecasting interactions between systems is impossible. Taleb cites the work of F.A. Hayek, who advocated for distributed knowledge and technologies and opposed central planning. He also mentions the irony of Soviet mathematicians, funded by social planners, proving the unpredictability of complex systems.

GMOs and the Importance of Tinkering:
Taleb criticizes the skipping of steps in the development of GMOs, arguing that it is akin to top-down planning. He emphasizes the importance of small tinkering and letting systems interact over time to understand their dynamics. Taleb highlights the opacity of natural systems to social planners and the need for a precautionary principle when dealing with complex systems with many unknowns.

Systemic Risk and Ruin:
Taleb argues that people fail to consider the risk of a succession of tail risk events, which can lead to ruin. He emphasizes the importance of calibrating risk-taking to the reservoir of resources available. Taleb warns against taking risks that threaten the entire human race.

Bottom-Up Local Events vs. Global Top-Down Events:
Taleb contrasts bottom-up local events, which lead to thin tails, with global connected top-down events, which are likely to be fat-tailed. He emphasizes the need for distributed knowledge and technologies to prevent the accumulation of risk.

Understanding Tail Risk:
GMOs pose a potential systemic risk due to the creation of large, interconnected systems and the emergence of new species. The focus should be on tail risk, not individual incidents of harm, as large-scale imbalances in nature can have significant consequences.

Lack of Scientific Evidence:
The burden of proof lies with the proponents of GMOs to demonstrate their understanding of tail risk and potential imbalances in nature. The scientific community has not adequately addressed the potential risks associated with GMOs, and current risk assessments are insufficient.

Evidence-Based Reasoning:
The demand for evidence from critics of GMOs is misplaced, as the absence of evidence does not equate to safety. Historical examples, such as smoking, lobotomy, and various pharmaceutical drugs, illustrate the delayed recognition of harmful effects.

Precautionary Principle and Nuclear Energy:
The precautionary principle cannot be universally applied, as in the case of nuclear energy. The localized nature of nuclear risks makes the precautionary principle less applicable compared to the systemic risks associated with GMOs.

What are fat tails and thin tails?:
Fat-tailed processes have a higher probability of extreme events than thin-tailed processes. In nature, many processes are fat-tailed, such as the size difference between an elephant and a mouse. However, circuit breakers in nature transform fat tails into modified thin tails, preventing extreme events from causing widespread destruction.

The precautionary principle:
The precautionary principle is a principle that states that when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. A naive precautionary principle would be to avoid all risks, even small ones. A non-naive precautionary principle would be to take into account the severity of the potential harm, the probability of the harm occurring, and the costs and benefits of taking precautionary measures.

Crossing the street is a thin-tailed process:
The probability of dying as a pedestrian is very small, about 1 in 47,000 years. Therefore, crossing the street is a thin-tailed process, and it would not be reasonable to invoke the precautionary principle to avoid crossing the street.

The death of an individual is not the end of the world:
The worst-case scenario for an individual is not their own death, but the death of their close ones, extended family, village, and humanity. Therefore, the death of an individual is not the end of the world, and it would not be reasonable to invoke the precautionary principle to avoid all risks that could potentially lead to death.

Precautionary Principle and Its Misuse:
The precautionary principle advocates for caution when facing potential risks, especially when scientific evidence is limited or uncertain. However, it has been misused to justify actions that lack scientific basis, such as banning GMOs or invading Iraq. The goal of the precautionary principle is to remove bad uses, not add more.

Legitimate Applications of the Precautionary Principle:
Global warming: Given the potentially catastrophic consequences, even a small probability of harm requires precautionary measures. Nuclear energy: Despite its risks, nuclear energy can be managed using risk management techniques. GMOs: The precautionary principle should be applied cautiously, considering both potential benefits and risks. Local Precautionary Measures: Precautionary measures are often exercised locally, such as airport security checks, to mitigate small but consequential risks. Society-Level Precautionary Measures: The precautionary principle is used to protect citizens from systemic ruin caused by moral hazards and pseudoscience. Lobbyists and Scientism: Large corporations and lobbyists often hijack science to promote their interests, undermining the credibility of scientific knowledge. Irrationality and Paranoia: Pathologizing people who express concerns about potential risks is a dismissive approach that ignores the value of caution in fat-tailed domains.

Expected Value vs. Risk of Ruin:
Expected value calculations can be misleading when dealing with fat-tailed distributions. Focusing on improving returns while ignoring the risk of ruin can lead to disastrous outcomes. The left tail of a distribution is more sensitive to the scale (sigma) than the mean, making it more susceptible to extreme events. Geoengineering and the Risk of Ruin: Geoengineering interventions, despite their potential benefits, introduce uncertainties that increase the risk of ruin.

Balancing Risks and Benefits:
The precautionary principle should be applied judiciously, considering both potential benefits and risks. It is important to weigh the consequences of inaction against the risks of taking action.

Russian Roulette Fallacy:
Technological solutions are often seen as the answer to global problems, but they can introduce more uncertainty and unintended consequences.

GMOs and Hunger:
The discourse on GMOs is inferior to that on finance. Trying to solve hunger by creating complex technologies with unknown consequences is not a wise approach.

Systemic Risks:
The benefits of globalization and systemic financial systems can also be sources of ruin. Naturalistic fallacies are common in risk management, but nature has a longer track record and is often smarter than humans.

Risk and Mathematics:
Risk can only be properly discussed mathematically, as verbal discussions often lead to mistakes. Mathematical analysis can help identify rational and irrational worries.

Co-Authors:
Yanir Bariam: Complexity physicist and molecular biologist. Joseph Norman: Biologist working on mathematizing biological systems. Rafael Duadi: Mathematician and expert in dynamical systems. Rupert Reed: Professor of philosophy and expert in decision science and rationality.

Flannering and Resolutions:
Taleb’s resolutions to take it easy often result in more work and less flannering. When free from pressure, people tend to pursue the work that is within them and wants to come out.

Precautionary Principle:
The precautionary principle is limited to actions that can lead to ecocides or destruction of life beyond humans. Antibiotics, for example, are not a concern because they don’t harm the planet.

Cultural Question:
It is difficult to implement public policy that stops people from making technological innovations. The question is whether we can be cautious in areas with potential risks, given the warnings against technological hubris.

GMOs and Regulation:
Lobbies like Monsanto can influence public opinion and slow down regulation of GMOs. The FDA has been effective in curtailing foolish scientism and protecting people from harm.

Technological Innovation and Paranoia:
The paper aims to stop paranoia about technological innovation but also highlights the need for caution. The second version of the paper reveals more alarming findings.

GMOs and Paranoia:
Despite reports from Switzerland, which does not use GMOs, nature is still intelligent. However, we don’t have much time to stop potential risks from occurring. GMOs should be acted upon, but the goal is not to limit risk-taking but to reduce excessive anxiety surrounding certain types of risk-taking. The purpose is to help people innovate, as husbandry, agriculture, and technological revolutions are all local and reversible.

Reversibility of Technological Effects:
Technology’s negative effects, such as river pollution, can be partially reversed. However, generalized effects, such as the effects of GMOs, cannot be reversed.