> Also, it took us 40 years to realize we may be responsible for global warning
There is a known mechanism for global warming: CO2. If you invoke the precautionary principle for everything without any requirement for scientifically feasible mechanism causing the imagined adverse effects, you can oppose everything. Why did we make use of the internet and wifi and cell phones right away, instead of slowly introducing them over a 100 year transition period? After all, there would have been little downside in acting safe and slow?
The point of the precautionary principle is we don't know the mechanism. And that's the correct approach -- because our understanding of human health, the environment, and the ecosystem is still in its infancy.
That's why we do testing in most areas. That's the point of the FDA -- EVERY new drug must be presumed unsafe and tested. Such an attitude would serve us well if it were applied to widespread environmental concerns. Otherwise it'll be self-interested corporations with a damning track record (e.g. DuPont) making the calls[1].
I'd agree with wifi and cell phones being introduced in a slower way actually.
We don't need a 100 years though, since there is only one thing to check: if it affects us directly. We don't have the same cascading effect potential, nor nearly the same number of possible interactions.
And we already know that cell phones affect us by the way: the new generation already present an attention and focus deficit because of the constant solicitation of the cell phone. Privacy is being denied more and more. We've created huge amount of electronic wastes.
So yeah, I wish we had took a little more time instead of jumping full throttle into it. Or at least follow the effects and react.
There is a known mechanism for global warming: CO2. If you invoke the precautionary principle for everything without any requirement for scientifically feasible mechanism causing the imagined adverse effects, you can oppose everything. Why did we make use of the internet and wifi and cell phones right away, instead of slowly introducing them over a 100 year transition period? After all, there would have been little downside in acting safe and slow?