Proactionary Nano-Policy: Managing Massive Decisions for Tiny Technologies
Max More, Ph.D.
page 6 of 7
Objectivity
Objectivity is a particularly important aspect of the proactionary principle. The precautionary principle does not deal well with 
objectivity. It is not comprehensive. It does not have any way to encourage you to look at all the risks and benefits in every area. It is an asymmetrical treatment because it is biased against human creation. And it does not seem to have any sense of proportionality. What kind of precaution is a sensible payoff for the benefits of any death or whatever we will lose? Is it worth doing?
The proactionary principle asks that we apply objectivity first by using science instead of popular perception. Do not let people's fears regulate how you make decisions. This is a difficult request to make of a politician or even a regulator who will get pressure from the politicians. Therefore, we need a lot of public discussion about this to pressure people under the political eye so that they do not make decisions based solely on the desires of special interest groups.
Objectivity also means using explicit forecasting processes and other decision processes to ask - how are you making this decision? Let it be publicly known and open to critique.
Another effective measure to enforce objectivity is to use the devil's advocate procedure. Almost no one does this even though it is an amazingly effective procedure. Within companies and government agencies, no one wants to employ a devil’s advocate because they assume that they are right; they make an argument, build their charts, give their numbers and say “I've made my case. Let's go ahead.” After some discussion, they make their decision. No one actually appoints a person to prepare and present a case against the idea. I think that is absolutely what we should do with all major decisions. In your personal life, it is good to ask somebody who you think will disagree with your decision what they would say against it. Essentially, this method applies the scientific method on a micro scale for particular decisions.
Symmetrical Treatment
In terms of symmetrical treatment, the technological risks should be treated on the same basis of natural risks. In other words, do not treat the risks of gene-splice crops differently from traditional crops, which is done all the time. If the procedure is natural, such as a natural way of farming, you do not see the same kind of scrutiny that you do to technologically based methods, even though there are major risks in some of those natural processes, too. For example, some ways of fertilizing with perfectly natural substances can cause run off and other problems that are actually reduced by genetically engineered crops, but we automatically assume the opposite is true.
Another important point is that you must fully account for the benefits of technological advances. Of course, you cannot do that totally because you cannot foresee all of them. Therefore, it is important to be comprehensive, to consider all the reasonable alternative actions, including no action.
Do not assume you have to do something. Figure all the possibilities you could go through and choose the one that would yield the best payoff. Carefully consider whether there are any opportunities and possibilities that are being closed off by abandoning or relinquishing or regulating a technology. If you decide not to pursue something, you should ask what else would people do instead? What are the substitutes? If you decide to do something else, the results might be worse. Very importantly, think about second-order and third-order and fourth-order effects, not just first-order effects.