> Don’t assume that “this is uncertain” or “the science isn’t settled” means that we should continue with the status quo—often, uncertainty is a spur to action.
This is something like an "inverse Chesterton's Fence". If someone just built a fence yesterday and it's causing problems, maybe you should tear it down, even if it's not clear why they built it, since they probably also didn't consider why there wasn't a fence in the first place.
> Perhaps the most tragic case was the prominent pro-tobacco scientist, Wilhelm C. Hueper, a tireless advocate against asbestos; he supported tobacco because he associated “tobacco causes cancer” with asbestos companies trying to get out of paying damages to their victims.
I think there's another general lesson here! Like, there can be more than just two possiblities...
> Don’t assume that “this is uncertain” or “the science isn’t settled” means that we should continue with the status quo—often, uncertainty is a spur to action.
> It’s not that costly to society to regulate the pollutants that cause acid rain, and once you do you’ll quickly find out if your theory of acid rain is accurate.
This sort of rule is generally true, but has an obvious flaw: one assumption here (if I understand you correctly) is that if the theory that whatever is being regulated is harmful turns out to be false after further investigation, then the regulation will be repealed to limit the economic cost. The opposite situation, where a regulation that turned out to be pointless is kept & enforced anyway, out of inertia or legislative paranoia or because it advantages some businesses that become politically influential, happens often enough that, if the regulation isn't designed to be reevaluated & possibly repealed after a limited time by default, the eventual economic cost may be sufficient to outweigh the expected value of the regulation's benefits. Of course, it would be better to reform government so that such regulation is reevaluated & is easier to repeal, but given how difficult that is, it's understandable that some people think it better to err on the side of underregulation within the current system.
> Don’t assume that “this is uncertain” or “the science isn’t settled” means that we should continue with the status quo—often, uncertainty is a spur to action.
This is something like an "inverse Chesterton's Fence". If someone just built a fence yesterday and it's causing problems, maybe you should tear it down, even if it's not clear why they built it, since they probably also didn't consider why there wasn't a fence in the first place.
> that nuclear winter wasn’t serious
My understanding is that one is true, though! Bean discusses this for instance (among other things) here: https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Weapon-Destructiveness
> Perhaps the most tragic case was the prominent pro-tobacco scientist, Wilhelm C. Hueper, a tireless advocate against asbestos; he supported tobacco because he associated “tobacco causes cancer” with asbestos companies trying to get out of paying damages to their victims.
I think there's another general lesson here! Like, there can be more than just two possiblities...
> Don’t assume that “this is uncertain” or “the science isn’t settled” means that we should continue with the status quo—often, uncertainty is a spur to action.
Thank you for making this explicit!
> It’s not that costly to society to regulate the pollutants that cause acid rain, and once you do you’ll quickly find out if your theory of acid rain is accurate.
This sort of rule is generally true, but has an obvious flaw: one assumption here (if I understand you correctly) is that if the theory that whatever is being regulated is harmful turns out to be false after further investigation, then the regulation will be repealed to limit the economic cost. The opposite situation, where a regulation that turned out to be pointless is kept & enforced anyway, out of inertia or legislative paranoia or because it advantages some businesses that become politically influential, happens often enough that, if the regulation isn't designed to be reevaluated & possibly repealed after a limited time by default, the eventual economic cost may be sufficient to outweigh the expected value of the regulation's benefits. Of course, it would be better to reform government so that such regulation is reevaluated & is easier to repeal, but given how difficult that is, it's understandable that some people think it better to err on the side of underregulation within the current system.