I learned about the precautionary principle when I worked at Greenpeace. It says…
The lack of evidence of harm isn’t evidence of lack of harm.
In other words, just because there isn’t evidence showing that a certain chemical, let’s say, doesn’t do damage, it doesn’t mean that it’s safe. And this principle is used as justification to take action to prevent environmental harm in the face of scientific uncertainty.
It might seem odd to hear me say this as a former research biologist, but I cringe when I hear people say that they “trust science.” Why? Because science isn’t immune from conflicts of interests (who pays can influence the results) and sometimes science gets it wrong.
Similarly, I lament people discounting things that aren’t science-based. Why? Besides harboring spiritual beliefs that haven’t been scientifically verified, there’s much good science wanting to happen that doesn’t get funding.
Me, rather than wait for science to validate my inner nudges or intuition about things, I invoke what I call The Prosperity Principle. It says…
A lack of evidence of benefit isn’t evidence of a lack of benefit.
Or, just because there isn’t science showing that a certain thing or approach produces a good effect, it doesn’t mean that it won’t. So let’s use this as justification to take action to promote community health and well-being amid scientific and personal uncertainty.
Certainty—or we can call it confidence—doesn’t come from thinking but doing.
Instead of doing nothing because we’re unsure our village-growing ideas will work or help, let’s be citizen scientists and collect our own damned data!
Think about your neighborhood and ask, “I wonder what would happen if I [did X]?”
Then do something you’re curious about doing and see what happens—if you don’t like the result, try something else. HOWEVER, … I would caution you not to abandon your “bad result” experiments too soon. I’ll write more on this later.
Finally, if you’re feeling like this post is a long-winded way of encouraging us to stop putting our power in the hands of people who presume to know more than we do or who we deem to be more knowledgeable than us, then you would be correct. 🙂
P.S. Here’s the follow up post, as promised.
Published by