Content uploaded by J.C. Hanekamp
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by J.C. Hanekamp on Apr 02, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The historical roots of precautionary thinking: The cultural ecological critique and 'The Limits to Growth'
Abstract
Although, at first glance, the precautionary principle looks perfectly sensible and self-evident, it is based on a way of thinking that has a history of its own, which goes back to the 1960s and early 1970s. Precautionary thinking should mainly be seen as a reaction: it is an answer to the self-confidence mainstream society had in the progress' of post-war civilization. It is an antithesis, which materialized when especially Western civilization was stirred by stories and facts about pollution and the degradation of nature and part of the Western societal elite was disquieted by the reality of the sovereign nation-state which in their view was powerless to deal with the world problematique'. In this article we argue from a historical perspective that the precautionary principle is part and parcel of the cultural ecological critique, which was brought centre-stage in the early 1970s by among others The Limits to Growth', the first report to the Club of Rome. Here we want to elucidate these historical roots with a special attention to the Club of Rome, and want to discuss the present state of affairs concerning the precautionary principle.
... The Precautionary Principle is often said to have sprung from German environmental law like Athena from Zeus' forehead. We will now show that it precautionary thinking appeared even earlier, at least 1953, in the U.S. federal common law equitable remedy of the preliminary injunction; and that it makes more sense to research the appearance of precautionary thinking in separate disciplines, as an indication of a widespread cultural movement (Hanekamp et al. 2005), rather than searching for a single origin. Along these lines, we are not saying that German law or international law descended from the American preliminary injunction. ...
... Risks, according to Beck (1992Beck ( [1986, are the unintended consequences of the rapid development of science and technology in late modern (capitalist) society (Rasborg 2012); and these risks may be responsible for late modern society's distinctive culture of fear (Furedi and Derbyshire 1997, Glassner 2010, Hanekamp et al. 2005, Tudor 2003). But our responses to risks, such as our deployment of the Precautionary Principle, also have unintended consequences. ...
Since being globalized by inclusion in the 1980’s and 1990’s through several U.N. declarations and treaties, the Precautionary Principle has become a flashpoint internationally among scholars working in the fields of risk, international environmental law, European Union law and even U.S. federal law. The controversy surrounding the Precautionary Principle apparently arose and persists because the Principle is undertheorized. We revisit three fundamental questions: what is the Precautionary Principle, where did it come from, and how should we use it. Because the Precautionary Principle is a legal tool that is used internationally to manage technology, a comprehensive discussion of it is organically international and interdisciplinary. We argue that the Precautionary Principle is an index of formative measures of risk and fear; that its origins should be investigated specifically in relation to the particular legal instrument in question; and that it should be utilized only as an indicator of public perception and not as a prescriptive risk management tool. Because the Precautionary Principle is currently utilized internationally as a prescriptive tool, our recommendation is both controversial and non-trivial.
... Still, it embodied the belief in scientific certainty that was based on the possibility and probability of 'the negativity' of human existenceextinctionrather than the 'positive' accuracy and completeness. The systems approach heuristically used in the CoR report to identify 'event' and prevent 'crisis,' as visualized in Figure 4, enacted a 'precautionary principle' that is characterized by the acceleration of time, the tight stringency of ex ante regulation (Hanekamp, Vera-Navas, & Verstegen, 2005), and the constant assessment of the balance between the emerging threat and the costs of (in)action in the present (Anderson, 2010). As Hanekamp et al. (2005) argued, 'the precautionary principle impresses upon us a moral obligation to take care of the environment, of mankind, our children, and our children's children' (p. ...
... The systems approach heuristically used in the CoR report to identify 'event' and prevent 'crisis,' as visualized in Figure 4, enacted a 'precautionary principle' that is characterized by the acceleration of time, the tight stringency of ex ante regulation (Hanekamp, Vera-Navas, & Verstegen, 2005), and the constant assessment of the balance between the emerging threat and the costs of (in)action in the present (Anderson, 2010). As Hanekamp et al. (2005) argued, 'the precautionary principle impresses upon us a moral obligation to take care of the environment, of mankind, our children, and our children's children' (p. 297). ...
The STEM crisis discourse enacts a crisis sensitivity that governs the way of thinking and feeling about change in relation to techno-science. This article examines how this crisis sensitivity is historically co-constituted with systems analysis to configure the global, the future, and the accountable subjects as the objects of techno-scientific control in the early postcolonial era. The analytical approaches are historical epistemology and performativity theory. The discussions rely on the archives and publications of international institutes (e.g. UNESCO, the Club of Rome, IIASA) that adopted systems analysis to diagnose the ‘world crisis’ in and beyond education around 1970. The article argues systems analysis enacted a techno-scientific vision and calculation that collapsed the global and the future into a state of crisis, self-referentially enunciated itself as the intellectual and moral solution, and differentially included particular subjects as latent threats to the whole world for preemptive control.
... The farmers themselves may want to see some proof before being curtailed in their management options, regardless whether they are financially compensated or not. The indiscriminate nature of universal directives imposed on all farmers based on a too rigid application of the precautionary principle is questionable (Hanekamp et al., 2005), as is the desire to create a so-called level playing field whilst disregarding differences in local needs (Schröder et al., 2004). Undoubtedly, there are plenty of local cases where soils are at risk of irreversible degradation. ...
Soils perform more functions than primary productivity. Examples of these functions are the recycling of nutrients, the regulation and purification of water, the regulation of the climate, and supporting biodiversity. These abilities are generally referred to as the soil quality. Soil management that favors primary productivity may have positive and negative impacts on the other functions, and vice versa, depending on soil and climatic conditions. All these functions are under pressure, particularly in intensive agriculture. In the absence of mandatory regulations, most European farmers give limited attention to other functions than primary productivity in spite of recommendations by scientists, society and policy makers to acknowledge the ecosystem services provided by soils. The present paper analyses the underlying causes of this limited attention for the multi-functionality of soils by farmers. It is concluded that their focus on primary productivity may stem from (1) insufficient visible proof for soil degradation and benefits of preventive measures over curative measures, (2) limited awareness or conviction of long-term synergies, (3) insufficient remuneration of ecosystem services by society or compensation of yield penalties in favor of these services, (4) lacking trustworthy knowledge about and support for multi-functional soil management, and (5) absence of incentives and regulations on soil management and their enforcement. All these shortcomings need to be addressed by advisors, scientists, and policy makers, whilst acknowledging the need for underpinning and differentiation of incentives and regulations.
Van Kooten en De Bie hebben begin jaren tachtig van de vorige eeuw de Nederlandse taal met een angstaanjagend mooi neologisme verrijkt: doemdenken. Sinds de Tweede Wereldoorlog is doemdenken ons mentaal meubilair. Het is de angst voor het gewelddadige einde, uiteraard door ons toedoen, van de wereld en daarmee onszelf.
Recent years have seen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members embark upon various initiatives that seek to harmonize their competition regimes. These ongoing efforts to modernize and harmonize ASEAN competition laws take place amid a longstanding effort by both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to export their respective competition laws throughout the world. This raises a critical question: should the ASEAN countries attempt to mimic the competition regimes of other developed nations, notably those that are in force in the EU and the US? And, if so, which one of these regimes should they draw more inspiration from? This paper seeks to dispel the myth that the European model of competition enforcement would necessarily provide a superior blueprint. To the contrary, it shows that the evolutionary, common-law-like regime that has emerged in the US has many strengths that are often overlooked by contemporary competition policy scholarship, and which might provide a particularly good fit for the economic and political realities of the ASEAN member states. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 analyzes the high-level differences between the American and European approaches to competition policy. Section 3 shows that the US and Europe also differ substantially in terms of the conduct that may constitute an infringement of competition law — the EU system being significantly more restrictive. Section 4 turns to the thorny problem of digital platforms, in particular, and argues that while the European model might more readily facilitate intervention against digital platforms, the resulting cases may be detrimental to consumers and the economy more broadly. Section 5 posits that reducing economic concentration — sometimes cited as a byproduct of European-style competition enforcement — should not be a self-standing goal of antitrust policy. Finally, Section 6 argues that many of the economic and political characteristics of the ASEAN economy cut in favor of using the US model of competition enforcement as a blueprint for further development and harmonization of ASEAN competition law.
The precautionary principle has been invoked to support stringent European food law. By its nature, the principle is particularly relevant to food security. This chapter discusses how precaution has been applied in EU food law generally, and finds that its application has been both controversial and selective. We then turn to two specific cases in which the precautionary principle played a prominent role: antibiotic residues in food and micronutrient malnutrition. On this basis, we revisit the precautionary principle’s role in EU food law. We conclude that the precautionary principle is best understood as a political tool, rather than an intellectual concept.
Abundance refers to the thesis that four emerging forces, namely exponential technologies, the Do-it-yourself (DIY) innovator, Technophilanthropists, and the Rising Billion, will solve the most significant and intractable world social problems. One such exponentially growing technology is the sensor. It has been estimated that there will be a trillion sensors, or “TSensors,” by 2020. These TSensors will comprise a portion of the so-called proposed Internet of Things. In the present article we construct a technology forecast for that portion of the Internet of Things that is required to support the manufacture and operation of the TSensors. We utilize the technology roadmap framework, in which we highlight the importance of consortia and provide Technology Readiness Levels for component technologies.
Dismayed by the negativism of the Carter Administration's report Global 2000 and suspicious of the political uses being made of it, Professor Simon of the University of Maryland and the late Herman Kahn, with support from the Heritage Foundation, put together these studies by experts to correct what they think are fundamental errors. They call their rather optimistic statements about the future of population, food, water, resources, climate and other things unconditional predictions in the absence of an unforeseeable catastrophe - their underlying assumption being that people will do the right things to adjust constructively to change.
