A Concluding Note: Fear and Folly

Summary

By its very nature, fear is selective. Some people are afraid to fly but not to drive. Others are afraid of medication but not of the risks associated with avoiding medication. We might fear the risks of insufficient exercise but neglect the danger of excessive exposure to the sun. We might fear the risks of terrorism but neglect the risks of smoking. Unfortunately, it is not possible to take strong precautions against all risks. Those who seem most fearful, and most determined to avoid danger, often increase risks through their very efforts to eliminate danger.

On these counts, nations are the same as ordinary people. When governments claim to be taking precautions, they might well be increasing risks rather than reducing them. Any preemptive war – and the 2003 war against Iraq in particular – can turn out to be an example. So, too, with environmental restrictions that control genetically modified food, or lead companies to use less safe substitutes, or dramatically increase the price of energy.

For these reasons I have criticized the Precautionary Principle, at least if the idea is taken as a plea for aggressive regulation of risks that are unlikely to come to fruition. That idea is literally incoherent, simply because regulation itself can create risks. If the Precautionary Principle seems to offer clear guidance, it is only because human cognition and social influences make certain hazards stand out from the background.