Podcasts about Precautionary principle

This week on World Ocean Radio we are discussing the September 2025 news that Morocco has become the 60th nation to ratify the High Seas Treaty, a two-decades long process to establish and protect a vast complex of biodiversity in international waters. This is a major milestone and a huge step forward, uniting many rules promoted by many UN agencies under a single rubric and framework for coherent protection. About World Ocean Radio World Ocean Radio is a weekly series of five-minute audio essays available for syndicated use at no cost by college and community radio stations worldwide. Peter Neill, Founder of the World Ocean Observatory and host of World Ocean Radio, provides coverage of a broad spectrum of ocean issues from science and education to advocacy and exemplary projects.World Ocean Radio 15 Years, 760+ Episodes Ocean is climate Climate is ocean The sea connects all thingsWorld Ocean Radio: 5-minute weekly insights in ocean science, advocacy, education, global ocean issues, marine science, policy, challenges, and solutions. Hosted by Peter Neill, Founder of W2O. Learn more at worldoceanobservatory.org

Ronan is an independent scientist, environmentalist and writer.About Gerry: My main interests are in disease, immunity and the discovery of chemotherapeutic compounds00:00 Introduction and Guest Introduction00:15 Overview of the COVID-19 Paper02:36 Background of the Authors and Initial Work03:27 Scientific Approach to COVID-1904:58 Challenges in Questioning the Science09:38 Government Policies and Model Predictions17:44 Sweden's Unique Approach20:32 Publication Challenges and Shifting Narratives22:14 Unintended Consequences of Policies26:27 Precautionary Principle and Logical Fallacies31:56 Great Barrington Declaration and Scientific Dissent45:37 Public Perception and Media Influence49:51 Introduction to Vaccine Narratives50:12 Public Response and Social Dynamics51:23 Questioning Public Health Directives52:50 Media and Information Control53:32 Discussion on Ivermectin and Vaccines54:35 Exploring Ancient Irish Ethnopharmacology55:08 The Role of Streptomyces in Medicine01:01:35 Mathematical Models and Policy Decisions01:09:12 Seasonality and Stringency of COVID Measures01:16:44 Pharmaceutical Interventions and Controversies01:26:16 WHO's Ivermectin and Remdesivir Analysis01:26:44 Exclusion of Ivermectin Studies01:29:50 HCQ Trials and Data Issues01:32:50 Public Perception and Media Influence01:37:23 Vaccine Technology and Public Awareness01:48:54 Adverse Reactions and Reporting02:02:20 Final Thoughts and RecommendationsRonan's X: https://x.com/1RonanConnollyGerry's X: https://x.com/jercuinnFrom Ronan: The paper (37 co-authors) covers many topics, but this 28 min Alex Newman interview gives a great overview of our key findings: https://x.com/1RonanConnolly/status/1932831388790624445The paper itself: https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/international-journal-of-public-health/articles/10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727/full—AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summariesMy Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

David Siegel is a tech entrepreneur from Silicon Valley. He has been researching and writing about climate since 1990. 00:00 Introduction and Setup00:17 Understanding Statistical Numeracy02:26 Gun Control Study04:12 Motivated Reasoning and Political Bias07:23 Personal Beliefs and Group Identity10:04 Medical Misconceptions and Drug Efficacy12:10 Critical Thinking and Scientific Curiosity16:13 Climate Change and CO2 Debate25:32 Heat Transport and Climate Dynamics27:15 Skeptics vs. Promoters: A Historical Perspective27:59 The Precautionary Principle and Government Overreach28:25 The Importance of Scientific Curiosity30:27 Proposing a Climate Debate32:12 Debate Structure and Logistics35:32 Challenges and Funding for the Debate38:07 Final Thoughts and Call to ActionX: https://x.com/PullNewsLongevity: https://www.infinitegameoflife.com/=========AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summariesMy Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

1.27.2025_Environmental L..A.W.S. - PFAS Analysis and the Precautionary Principle by Thompson Hine

IntroductionLIVE from your ESG corn maze, it's a Business Pants Friday Show here at October 25th Studios, featuring all your favorites: AnalystHole-man Matt Moscardi. On today's weekly wrap up: McDonald's investor relations team hires entire writing staff from The Onion, an accelerated retirement at Southwest, Denny's is saving lives, and a shout-out to Mr. CorpGovOur show today is being sponsored by Free Float Analytics, the only platform measuring board power, connections, and performance for FREE.Story of the Week (DR):McDonald's strange week: DR MMTrumpMcDonald's is distancing itself from Donald Trump after a high-profile visit to the fryerWe don't support presidentsRead McDonald's memo about Trump's controversial visit: 'We are not red or blue – we are golden'E. coli outbreak/quarter pounder/onionsE. coli outbreak tied to McDonald's Quarter Pounder kills 1, sickens dozens in USTaco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King pull onions amid McDonald's outbreakA much bigger McDonald's lawsuit is about to ‘erupt' in the aftermath of its E. coli outbreak, food safety lawyer saysCDC told McDonald's about potential E. coli outbreak late last weekFDA probing McDonald's supplier Taylor Farms as source of E. Coli outbreak, CNBC reportsDEI failure? According to comparably.com, only 2 of Taylor Farms leadership team of 16 are women. So I guess Vivek would agree that it was the men? Former Abercrombie CEO Mike Jeffries charged with sex trafficking, interstate prostitutionSouthwest chairman will 'accelerate retirement' and step down next week, as board appoints 6Disney to name CEO Bob Iger's replacement in 2026, taps Morgan Stanley's Gorman as chairBoeing strike drags on as latest deal is rejected by 64% of unionGoodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Apple CEO Tim Cook's Other Job: Helping Nike Turn Things AroundDR: Denny's to close 150 restaurants, will reduce menuMM: McDonald's linked to E. coli outbreak, CDC saysTrump just served them!MM: SEC Fines WisdomTree $4 Million for Investing in Fossil Fuels and Tobacco in ESG Funds DR MMAssholiest of the Week (MM):Southwest and activist investor Elliott strike deal to keep CEO Bob Jordan, add six new directorsLook how we have to coddle these fucking directors - the six directors leaving Southwest will be gone by November 1, but Gary Kelly, who has sat on this board and let it languish for THREE DECADES will still get to linger at the back of the conference room as “Chair Emeritus”In: David Cush, Sarah Feinberg, Dave Grissen, Gregg Saretsky and Patricia Watson plus Pierre Breber, who was already addedWe have Grissen, Saretsky, Watson, and Breber in our dataAverage earnings: 413Average TSR: 389Out: Biegler, Biggins, Blunt, Cunningham, Gilligan, and SoltauAverage earnings: 356Average TSR: 371Survivors: Doug Brooks, Ed Conrado, Bob Fornaro, Rakesh Gangwal, David Hess, Elaine Mendoza, Chris Reynolds, and Lisa AthertonAverage earnings: 379Average TSR: 500Replacement skills:Energy/oil (Biegler) for energy/oil (Breber)Government (Blunt) for government regulator (Feinberg)TWO professors (Cunningham, Gilligan) for TWO airlines (Cush, Saretsky)Bankrupt retail (Soltau) for mediocre hotel (Grissen)Bank (Biggins) for Bank tech (Watson)Jordan staysThis is the big win??? Replacing mediocre with mediocre, keeping Kelly napping in the background, and Jordan, a lifer alongside Kelly, keeps his job? That's a WIN?Teen Dies by Suicide After Becoming Obsessed With AI Chatbot150m raised at a 1bn valuationAndreesen anchoredTechno Optimist Manifesto:We believe Artificial Intelligence can save lives – if we let it. Medicine, among many other fields, is in the stone age compared to what we can achieve with joined human and machine intelligence working on new cures. There are scores of common causes of death that can be fixed with AI, from car crashes to pandemics to wartime friendly fire.We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing is a form of murder.Our present society has been subjected to a mass demoralization campaign for six decades – against technology and against life – under varying names like “existential risk”, “sustainability”, “ESG”, “Sustainable Development Goals”, “social responsibility”, “stakeholder capitalism”, “Precautionary Principle”, “trust and safety”, “tech ethics”, “risk management”, “de-growth”, “the limits of growth”.Accountability and oversight: noneOpenAI disbands another safety team, head advisor for 'AGI Readiness' resignsMeta Oversight Board seriously concerned about Facebook's ‘overenforcement' of Harris-Walz nipple postWhining Boeing InvestorsLawsuit Against Boeing's Board Seeks Accountability for Safety FailuresOhio AG Dave Yost on behalf of Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of OhioThe lawsuit contends that board members and senior management know about the ongoing unsafe practices but even today fail to address them, choosing instead to prioritize profits over safety and regulatory compliance.“The failure of Boeing's directors and officers to implement and oversee Boeing's safety and compliance functions in good faith led to incalculable damage to Boeing's relationships with its regulators, customers, lenders, potential employees, and the flying public,” the lawsuit says.Congrats on the lawsuit! Also, the 2024 proxy vote by OPERS:Headliniest of the WeekDR: Microsoft CEO Nadella asked for pay reduction after security slip, but total comp still rose 63% (more than $30 million)MM: H/t to Mr. CorpGov on his substackWho Won the Week?DR: He wins when he says and when he doesn't says: Jamie Dimon Privately Supports Kamala Harris. He Just Won't Say So.MM: Shake Shack, the only fast food company not associated with e coliPredictionsDR: Jamie Dimon Says you should feel safe eating at McDonald's even though he wouldn't be caught dead eating at McDonald's. Also, the next CEO of Disney comes from NetflixMM: Ozempic cures e coli

In a world of Artificial General Intelligence, machines would be able to match, and even exceed, human cognitive abilities. AGI might still be science fiction, but Séb Krier sees this technology as not only possible, but inevitable. Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I chat with Krier about how our public policy should facilitate AGI's arrival and flourishing.Krier is an AI policy expert, adviser, and attorney. He currently works in policy development and strategy at Google DeepMind. He previously served as Head of Regulation for the UK Government's Office for Artificial Intelligence and was a Senior Tech Policy Researcher at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center.In This Episode* The AGI vision (1:24)* The risk conversation (5:15)* Policy strategy (11:25)* AGI: “if” or “when”? (15:44)* AI and national security (18:21)* Chatbot advice (20:15)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationPethokoukis: Séb, welcome to the podcast.Krier: Thank you. Great to be here.The AGI vision (1:24)Let's start with a bit of context that may influence the rest of the conversation. What is the vision or image of the future regarding AI — you can define it as machine learning or generative AI — that excites you, that gets you going in the day, that you feel like you're part of something important? What is that vision?I think that's a great question. In my mind, I think AI has been going on for quite a long time, but I think the aim has always been artificial general intelligence. And in a sense, I think of this as a huge deal, and the vision I have for the future is being able to have a very, very large supply of cognitive resources that you can allocate to quite a wide range of different problems, whether that's energy, healthcare, governance, there's many, many ways in which this technology can be applied as a general purpose technology. And so I guess my vision is seeing that being used to solve quite a wide range of problems that humans have had for decades, centuries, millennia. And I think you could go into so many different directions with that, whether it's curing diseases, or optimizing energy grids, and more. But I think, broadly, that's the way I think about it. So the objective, in a sense, is safe AGI [Artificial General Intelligence], and from that I think it can go even further. And I think in many ways, this can be hugely beneficial to science, R&D, and humanity as a whole. But of course, that also comes with ways in which this could be misused, or accidents, and so on. And so huge emphasis on the safe development of AGI.So you're viewing it as a tool, as a way to apply intelligence across a variety of fields, a variety of problems, to solve those problems, and of course, the word in there doing a lot of lifting is “safely.” Given the discussion over the past 18 months about that word, “safely,” is, one, I think someone who maybe only pays passing attention to this issue might think that it's almost impossible to do it safely without jeopardizing all those upside benefits, but you're confident that those two things can ultimately be in harmony?Yeah, absolutely, otherwise I wouldn't be necessarily working on an AGI policy. So I think I'm very confident this can be done well. I think it also depends what we mean by “safety” and what kind of safety we have in mind. Any technology, we will have costs and trade-offs, but of course the upside here is enormous, and, in my mind, very much outweighs potential downsides.However, I think for certain risks, things like potentially catastrophic risks and so on, there is an argument in treading some careful path and making sure this is done scientifically with a scientific method in mind, and doing that well. But I don't think there's fundamentally a necessary tension, and I think, in fact, what many people sometimes underestimate is how AI itself, as a technology, will be helpful in mitigating a lot of the risks we're foreseeing and thinking about. There's obviously ways in which AI can be used for cyber offense, but many ways in which you can also use that for defense, for example. I'm cautiously optimistic about how this can be developed and used in the long runThe risk conversation (5:15)Since these large language models and chatbots were rolled out to public awareness in late 2022, has the safety regulatory debate changed in any way? It seems to me that there was a lot of talk early on about these existential risks. Now I seem to hearing less about that and more about issues about, maybe it's disinformation or bias. From your perspective, has that debate changed and has it changed for the better, or worse?I think it has evolved quite a lot over the past — I've been working in AI policy since 2017 and there's been different phases, and at first a lot of skepticism around AI even being useful, or hype, and so on, and then seeing more and more of what these general models could do, and I think, initially, a lot of the concerns were around things like bias, and discrimination, and errors. So even things like, early-on, facial-recognition technologies were very problematic in many ways: not just ways in which they were applied, but they would be prone to a lot of errors and biases that could be unfair, whereas they're much better now, and therefore the concern now is more on misuse than it accidentally misidentifying someone, I would say. So I think, in that sense, these things have changed. And then a lot of the discourse around existential risk and so on, there was a bit of a peak a bit last year, and then this switched a bit towards more catastrophic risks and misuse.There's a few different things. Broadly, I think it's good that these risks are taken seriously. So, in some sense, I'm happy that these have taken more space, in a way, but I think there's also been a lot of alarmism and unnecessary doomerism, of crying wolf a little bit too early. I think what happens is that sometimes people also conflate a capability of a system and how that fits within a wider risk or threat model, or something; and the latter is often under-defined, and there's a tendency for people to often see the worst in technology, particularly in certain regions of the world, so I think sometimes a lot has been a little bit exaggerated or overhyped.But, having said that, I think it's very good there's lots of research going on on the many ways in which this could potentially be harmful, certainly on the research side, the evaluation side, there's a lot of great work. We've published some papers on sociotechnical evaluations, dangerous capabilities, and so on. All of that is great, but I think there has also been some more polarized parts calling for excessive measures, whether regulatory, or pausing AI, and so on, that I think have been a little bit too trigger-happy. So I'm less happy about these bits, but there's been a lot of good as well.And much of the debate about policy has been about the right sort of policy to prevent bad things from happening. How should we think about policy that maximizes the odds of good things happening? What should policymakers do to help promote AI to reshape science, to help promote AI diffusing as efficiently as possible throughout an economy? How do we optimize the upside through policy rather than just focusing on making sure the bad things don't happen?I think the very first thing is not having rushed regulation. I'm not personally a huge fan of the Precautionary Principle, and I think that, very often, regulations can cause quite a lot of harm downstream, and they're very sticky, hard to remove.The other thing that you can do beyond avoiding bad policy is I think a lot of the levers to making sure that the development goes well aren't necessarily all directly AI-related. So it'll be things like immigration: attracting a lot of talent, for example, I think will be very important, so immigration is a big one. Power and energy: you want there to be a lot more — I'm a big fan of nuclear, so I think that kind of thing is also very helpful in terms of the expected needs for AI development in the future. And then there are certain things governments could potentially do with some narrow domains like Advance Market Commitments, for example, although that's not a panacea.Commitments to do what?Oh, Advance Market Commitments like pull mechanisms to create a market for a particular solution. So like Operation Warp Speed, but you could have an AI equivalent for certain applications, but of course there's a lot of parameters in doing that well, and I wouldn't want a large industrial-policy-type approach to AI. But I think generally it's around ensuring that all the enablers, all the different ingredients and factors of a rich research and development ecosystem continue to thrive. And so I think, to a large extent, avoiding bad regulation and ensuring that a lot of things like energy, immigration, and so on go well is already a huge part of the battle.How serious of a potential bottleneck is the energy issue? It seems to me like it's a serious issue that's coming fast, but the solutions seem like they'll take more time, and I'm worried about the mismatch between the problem and finding a solution to the problem.I suspect that, over the coming years, we will see more and more of these AI systems being increasingly useful, capable, and then integrated into economic systems, and I think as you start seeing these benefits more and more, I think it'll be easier to make the case for why you need to solve some of these kind of policy issues a bit faster.And I also think these solutions aren't that difficult, ultimately. So I think there's a lot that can be done around nuclear, and wind, and solar, and so on, and many regulatory processes that could be simplified, and accelerated, and improved to avoid the vetocracy system we're in at the moment. So I don't think the solutions are that difficult, I think mustering the political will might be right now, but I expect that to be less of a challenge in the coming years with AI showing more and more promise, I think.Policy strategy (11:25)Speaking of vetocracy, whatever the exact substance of the regulation, I am concerned, at least in the United States, that we have 50 states, and perhaps even more bodies if you look at cities, who all have a lot of ideas about AI regulation, and I'm extremely concerned that that sort of fractured policy landscape will create a bottleneck.Can we get to where we need to go if that's the regulatory environment we are looking at, at least in the United States? And does, ultimately, there need to be a federal . . . I think the technical word is “preemption” of all those efforts? So there's a federal approach, and there aren't a federal approach, plus a 50-state approach, plus a 175-city approach to regulation. Because if it's going to be what I just described, that seems like a very difficult environment to deal with. I'm not wildly optimistic around a patchwork of different state-level regulatory systems. I think that will come with various externalities, you'll have distortionary effects. It will be a very difficult environment, from a commercial perspective, to operate in smoothly. I think I'm a lot more open to something at a federal level at some point, rather than a big patchwork of city-level or state-level regulation. Now, it depends on exactly what we're talking about. There might be specific domain, and context, and application-specific regulations that might make sense in some state and not another, but in general, from a first principles level at least, I think that would probably not be desirable.A second regulatory concern — and maybe this is dissipating as policy makers learn more, especially at the federal level, maybe, learn more about AI — is that, at least initially, it seems to me that whatever your policy idea was for social media, or about content moderation or what have you, you just kind of took that policy framework and applied it to AI because that was what you had. You pulled that baby right off the shelf. Are we still seeing that, or are people beginning to think, “This is its own thing, and my ideas for social media may be fine for social media, but I need to think differently about AI”? Obviously the technology is different; also, I think both the risks and potential rewards are very different.Yeah, totally. I think that has been an issue. Now, I wouldn't say that's the case for everyone. There's been some groups and some institutions doing some very careful work that really think about AI, and AGI, and so on in careful, more calibrated ways; but also I've seen quite a lot of reports where you could have easily imagined the same text being about social media platforms, or some kind of other policy issue, or blockchain, or something just being repurposed for AI. And there's a lot of stuff out there that's just very high level, and it's hard to disagree with at a high level, but it's far harder to apply and look at from an operational or practical perspective.So I've been seeing quite a lot of that; however, I think over time, the field is maturing more and more, and you're seeing better thinking around AI, what it really is, what's appropriate at the model level versus at the application level and the existing landscape of laws and regulation and how these might apply as well, which is often that's something that's forgotten, or you have lots of academics coming in and just trying to re-regulate everything from first principles, and then you're like, “Well, there's tort law, and there's this and that over there.” You got to do your gap analysis first before coming out with all this stuff.But I think we are seeing the field of AI governance and policy maturing in that space, and I expect it to continue, but I still, of course, see a lot of bad heuristics and poor thinking here, and particularly an underestimation of the benefits of AI and AGI. I think there's a tendency to always think of the worst for everything, and it's necessary, you need to do that too, but few are really internalizing how significant AGI would be for growth, for welfare, and for solving a lot of the issues that we've been talking about in the first place.The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedAGI: “if” or “when”? (15:44)Is AGI an “if” issue, or is it a “when” issue, and if it's a “when,” when? And I say this with the caveat that predictions are difficult, especially about the future.In my mind, it's definitely a “when” question. I see no real strong reason why it would be an “if,” and that being completely impossible. And there's been many, many, many examples over the last 10 years of people saying, “Well, this is not possible with neural networks,” and then 10 minutes later, it is proven to be possible. So that's a recurring theme, and that may not be sufficient to think that AGI is feasible and possible, but I'm pretty confident for a variety of reasons. About AGI, by the way, I think there's an excellent paper by Morris and others on Levels of AGI [for] Operationalizing Progress on the Path of AGI, and I think it's a very good paper to [frame one's thinking about AGI].And that goes back to one point I made earlier in that, at some point, you'll have systems that will be capable of quite a lot of things and can do probably anything that your average human can do, starting at least virtually, remotely, to start with, and eventually to the physical world, but I think they'll be capable in that sense. Now, there's a difference between these systems being capable in an individual lab setting or something and then them being actually deployed and used in industrial processes, commercial applications, in ways that are productive, add value, create profits, and so on, and I think there's a bit of a gap here. So I don't think we'll have a day where we'll wake up and say, “Oh, that's it, today we have AGI.” I think it'll be more of a kind of blurry spectrum, but gradually I think it'll be harder and harder people to deny that we have reached AGI, and as this stuff gets integrated into production systems, I think the effects on growth and the economy will speak for themselves.As to when exactly, I would think that, at least the capabilities, I would expect that in the next five years you could easily see a point where people could make a very confident claim that, yeah, we've got systems now that are AGI-level. They're generally capable, and they are pretty competent, or even expert-level to at least 90th percentile of skilled adults, and then the challenge will be then operationalizing that and integrating that into a lot of systems. But in my mind, it's definitely not an “if,” and I would say the next five to 10 years is the kind of relevant period I have in mind, at least. It could be longer, and I think the tech community has a tendency to sometimes over-index, particularly on the R&D side.AI and national security (18:21)Do you have any thoughts, and maybe you don't have any thoughts, about the notion that, as perhaps AGI seems closer, and maybe the geopolitical race intensifies, that this becomes more of a national security issue, and the government takes a greater role, and maybe the government makes itself a not-so-silent partner with tech companies, and it really becomes almost like a Manhattan Project kind of deal to get there first. Leopold Aschenbrenner wrote this very long, very long paper — is that an issue that you have any thoughts on? Is it something that you discuss, or does it seem just science fictional to you?Yeah, I do do a lot of thinking on that, and I've read Leopold's report, and I think there's a lot of good things in there. I don't necessarily agree with everything. I think things like security are really critical, I think thinking about things like alignment, and so on, is important. One thing I really agree with with Leopold's report that I'm glad he emphasized was the need to secure and cement liberal democracy, “the free world must prevail” kind of thing. I think that is indeed true, and people tend to underestimate the implication on that front. Now, what that looks like, what that means and requires in practice is not fully clear to me yet. I think people talk about a Manhattan Project, but there are many other potential blueprints or ways to think about that. There could be just normal procurement partnerships, there could be different models for this. At some point, something like that could be defensible, but it's very hard to predict that in advance, given particularly. . . well, how hard it is to predict anything with AI to start with. And secondly, there's loads of trade-offs with all these different options, and some might be a lot better than others, so I think certainly more work might be needed there. But, in principle, the idea doesn't seem completely crazy or science fiction to me.Chatbot advice (20:15)You recently posted on X that you were baffled at how many people don't use these language models or chatbots daily. I think a lot of people don't know what they would use them for. Do you have any recommendations for ways that people who are not in your line, who are not coders, that people can use them? Do you use them in ways that are applicable to the way regular people might use them?Yeah, I think so, and under the post, I gave a few examples of how I use it. Now admittedly, most of these wouldn't be something that anyone would do, but I thought about this last weekend when I was seeing my parents and I was trying to get them to understand what Claude or Gemini is and how to think about it, what kind of questions are worth asking, and what kind of questions are not worth asking, and it's very hard to come up with a very crisp way of sharing these intuitions. I think the first piece of advice I'd give is probably to just take one of these models and have a very long conversation with it about some sort of topic, like try to poke holes, try to contradict, and I think that starts giving you maybe a few better intuitions about what this can do, as opposed to just treating it as some sort of question-and-answer Oracle-type search engine, which I think is not the right use case.That is probably the most unsatisfying way to look at it, and just treat it as a better Google search engine. I mean really that sort of conversational, curious aspect, rather than saying like, “Find me a link.” “Find me a link” isn't a great use.Exactly, and people will often do that. We'll do a thing, we'll get some incorrect answer, or hallucination, or whatever, and then we'll say, “Oh, these things are not good, they're not accurate,” and we'll stop using it, and to me, that is just crazy. It is very fundamentally incurious, and I think there's ways of using them and thinking of them that is very useful. So what have I done recently? I'm trying to think of an example. . .I had some papers that I couldn't understand very well, and I would just ask it for better analogies, explanations, try to dig into certain concepts and ideas and just play around with them until the insights and intuitions were easier for me to internalize and understand. And I think you could do that at different levels, and regular people also want to understand things, so I think that might be potentially an example. But the very first thing I would do is simply long, protracted conversations to really get a sense of how far the model can really go, and then, as you do that, you'll find things that are a bit more creative than, “Can you please rewrite this email for me? Can you find typos?” or “Can you fill in my tax report?” or something. I think one way a friend used it — and of course, there are obvious limitations to that, get a lawyer and everything — but he had a legal contract that someone sent to him, and he couldn't afford a lawyer straight away, so he just said, “Can you help me find potential issues and errors in here? Here's who I am in this kind of contract. Here's what I'm concerned with.” And it's a first starting point. It can be useful. It gives you interesting insights. It doesn't mean it replaces a lawyer straight away, but it is one potential interesting way that everyday people could use.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

OPINION: Misreading the precautionary principle | May 2, 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Ralph and Luc spotlight an environmental success story: the Montreal Protocol's role in healing the ozone layer. We draw comparisons to the pitfalls of the IPCC's COP process and try to derive a diplomatic blueprint for climate policy. We look into the science of how ozone and chlorine works in the stratosphere, the history of the activist scientists (Sherwood Roland and Mario Molina) who first sounded the alarm about CFC's destruction of the ozone layer, and the work of technocrats in devising their replacement. We also examine the geopolitical dynamics that were foundational to this planetary victory. You can also watch this episode on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlz8O0_fkh4  Sources: • We sample clips from the 2019 PBS documentary Ozone Hole: How We Saved the Planet, written and directed by Jamie Lochhead — notably interviews with Mario Molina, Joan Roland (widow of Sherwood), Lee Thomas (administrator at the EPA), Crispin Tickell (adviser to Margaret Thatcher) and Bob Watson (NASA). https://www.pbs.org/show/ozone-hole-how-we-saved-planet/  • We also sample clips from this 2021 interview with Susan Solomon (the atmospheric chemist who demonstrated CFC's impact on ozone) and Stephen Andersen (leader of the Montreal Protocol and co-chair of its Technology and Economic Assessment Panel), by the Future of Life Institute, in which they share their roles in the closing of zone hole.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hwh-uDo-6A • We cite elements from the 1998 book Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet, by Richard Elliot Benedick. • We cite the 2002 book Ozone Connections: Expert Networks in Global Environmental Governance, by Penelope Canan and Nancy Reichman. • We cite the 2019 book The Ozone Layer: From Discovery to Recovery, by Guy P. Brasseur. • We cite the 2021 Nature article The Montreal Protocol protects the terrestrial carbon sink, by Paul J. Young, Anna B. Harper, Chris Huntingford, Nigel D. Paul, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul A. Newman, Luke D. Oman, Sasha Madronich & Rolando R. Garcia.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03737-3 • We refer to insights from the 2021 book Cut Super Climate Pollutants Now!: The Ozone Treaty's Urgent Lessons for Speeding Up Climate Action, by Alan Miller, Durwood Zaelke and Stephen Andersen. • We also cite from the 2023 book 35th Anniversary of Protecting the Ozone Layer, by Marco Gonzalez and Stephen Andersen.  Read more at: https://ozone.unep.org/ozone-timeline and https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/twentyquestions.pdf

In today's conclusion of my interview with Dr. Stuart Fischbein (from the Birthing Instincts podcast with Blyss Young), we talk about the intricacies of God's design, the new postpartum depression pill, "jabs", exposure to heavy metals, and Dr. Stu's recommendations for how to have the best chance to have a natural birth.     Helpful Links:   2 WAYS TO WORK WITH LORI:   --> Sign up HERE for the Your Birth, God's Way Online Christian Childbirth Course! This is a COMPLETE childbirth education course with a God-led foundation taught by a certified nurse-midwife with over 20 years of experience in all sides of the maternity world conducted LIVE this summer.  Learn more or sign up HERE!   --> Sign up for your PERSONALIZED Pregnancy Coaching Midwife & Me Power Hour HERE These consults can include: birth plan consultation, past birth processing, second opinions, breastfeeding consultation, and so much more!  Think of it as a special, one-hour appointment with a midwife to discuss whatever your concerns may be without any bias of practice policy or insurance policy influencing recommendations.     Lori's Recommended Resources HERE   Sign up for email updates Here   Be heard! Take My Quick SURVEY to give input on future episodes you want to hear --> https://bit.ly/yourbirthsurvey   Got questions?  Email lori@yourbirthgodsway.com     Socials: Follow Your Birth, God's Way on Instagram! Follow the Your Birth, God's Way Facebook Page! Join Our Exclusive Online Birth Community -- facebook.com/groups/yourbirthgodsway   Learn more about Lori and the podcast at yourbirthgodsway.com!   FREE Bible Study - If you die today, do you know where you're going? Can you be sure?  Let there be no doubt!  Let's study together here!   DISCLAIMER:  Remember that though I am a midwife, I am not YOUR midwife.  Nothing in this podcast shall; be construed as medical advice.  Listening to this podcast does not mean that we have entered into a patient-care provider relationship. While I strive to provide the most accurate information I can, content is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.  You must do your research and consult other reputable sources, including your provider, to make the best decision for your own care.  Talk with your own care provider before putting any information here into practice.  Weigh all risks and benefits for yourself knowing that no outcome can be guaranteed.  I do not know the specific details about your situation and thus I am not responsible for the outcomes of your choices.    Some links may be affiliate links which provide me a small commission when you purchase through them.  This does not cost you anything at all and it allows me to continue providing you with the content you love.

Gene editing is a powerful and specific technique that allows customized changes to DNA. Because there are no additional sequences transferred, and alternations match what could happen naturally over time, the technology is considered less invasive and less prone to regulatory oversight. That's true in the USA, Canada, China and other nations. However, the European Court of Justice determined that these techniques should be regulated in a manner identical to transgenics, where the EU has not approved such innovations in over two decades. EU scientists see how the EU is falling behind and after long may never catch up. The rejection of technology leads to a tremendous economic loss. Dr. Emma Kovak of the Breakthrough Institute discusses the current regulations, the proposed changes, and the dynamics of opposition to a good technology that could have profoundly positive impacts for people and the planet. 

How the world got rid of lead in gasoline.Sources: REVIEW: Clair Patterson and Robert Kehoe: Two Views of Lead Toxicity (uniwa.gr), Chemical concentrations of pollutant lead aerosols, terrestrial dusts and sea salts in Greenland and Antarctic snow strata - ScienceDirect, Historical changes in integrity and worth of scientific knowledge - ScienceDirect, The Removal of Lead from Gasoline: Historical and Personal Reflections - ScienceDirect, LSU Press :: Books - A Thousand Ways Denied, The Ancient Oyster - Country Roads Magazine, The Development of the Louisiana Oyster Industry in the 19th Century. (lsu.edu), Historical review of European gasoline lead content regulations and their impact on German industrial markets (Technical Report) | ETDEWEB (osti.gov), Precautionary Principle and the Kehoe Principle • LITFL • CCC. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

n this episode of Benevolent AI, safety researcher Dr. Roman Yampolskiy speaks with Host Dr. Ryan Merrill about societal concerns about controlling superintelligent AI systems. Based on his knowledge of what the top programmers are doing, Roman says at the most there is only a four year window - at most - to implement safety mechanisms before AI capabilities exceed human intelligence and are able to rewrite its own code. And that window could even be as short as one year from now. Either way, there's not much time left. Yampolskiy discusses the current approaches to instilling ethics in AI, as well as the bias shaped by the programmer who determines what is helpful or ethical. Yampolskiy advocates for a pause on development of more capable AI systems until safety is guaranteed. He compared the situation to the atomic bomb. Technology is advancing rapidly, so programmers urgently needs to establish social safeguards. More engagement is needed from the AI community to address these concerns now, to address the worst case scenario, then any positive outcome is a bonus. With all the risks of advanced AI, it also presents tremendous opportunities to benefit humanity, but safety first. #Benevolent #ai #safetyfirst Watch on Youtube @BetterWorlds # About Roman V. Yampolskiy Dr. Roman V. Yampolskiy is a Tenured Associate Professor in the department of Computer Engineering and Computer Science at the Speed School of Engineering, University of Louisville. He is the founding and current director of the Cyber Security Lab and an author of many books including Artificial Superintelligence: a Futuristic Approach. # About Better Worlds Better Worlds is a communication and community building platform comprised of weekly podcasts, engaging international conferences and hack-a-thons to encourage and support the development of Web3 solutions. Our programs celebrate voices from every continent to forge a shared and abundant future.

In episode seven, Daisy and Clare chat about all things related to fish - from where to obtain those all important essential omega 3 fatty acids, to whether fishing really is sustainable and what you can eat as an alternative on a plant based diet if you decide to leave fish alone. Further references are linked below: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/are-we-running-out-of-fish-fish-health-and-sustainability/3D836148DDB47B8F1D2E790872533B90 Li N, et al. Fish consumption and multiple health outcomes: Umbrella review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2020. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.033 Song M,et al. Association of animal and plant protein intake with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. JAMA Intern Med 2016. doi10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4182 Jayedi A, Shab-Bidar S. Fish Consumption and the Risk or Chronic Disease: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Prospective Cohort Studies. Advances in Nutrition 2020; 11:. Burns-Whitmore B, Froyen E, Heskey C, Parker T, Pablo GS. Alpha-linolenic and linolenic fatty acids in the vegan diet: Do they require dietary reference intake/ adequate intake special considerations? Nutrients 2019; 11:. Statement on the benefits of fish/seafood consumption compared to the risks of methlymercury in fish/seafood. EFSA J 2015. doi:10.2903/j.efsa2015.3982 Update on the monitoring of levels of dioxins and PCB's in food and feed. EFSA J 2012. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2832 Xue B, et al. Underestimated Microplastics Pollution Derived from Fishery Activities and ‘Hidden' in Deep Sediment. Environ Sci Technol 2020. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b04850 Cohen L, Jefferies A. Environmental Exposure and Cancer. Using the Precautionary Principle. Ecancermedicalscience 2019. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2019.ed91 Chen J, et al. Antibiotics and Food Safety in Aquaculture. J Agric Food Chem 2002.doi:10.1021/es011287i Courtenay M, et al. Tackling antimicrobial resistance 2019-2024- The UK's five year national action plan. J Hosp Infec 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2019.02.019 Manyi-Loh C, Mamphweli S, Meyer E, Okoh A. Antibiotic use in agriculture and its consequential resistance in environmental sources: Potential public health implications. Molecules 2018; 23(4):795,doi:10.3390/molecules23040795  Milanovic V,  Osimani A, Aquilanti L, et al Occurrence of antibiotic resistant genres in the faecal DNA of healthy omnivores, ovo-lacto vegetarians and vegans. Mol Nutr Food Res 2017; 61(9) doi:10.1002/mnfr.201601098 The Gospel of the Eels - book by Patrik Svensson https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64814781 https://marine-conservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Sala-et-al_Nature_2021.pdf Financial Times articles (behind a pay wall) Missing ice and bleached coral: the sudden warming of the oceans | Financial Times 7/8/23   Use of horseshoe crabs' blue blood puts pharma groups under scrutiny | Financial Times (ft.com) 23/8/23 Seagrass beds | WWT  https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/omega-3-and-omega-6-fats?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw38SoBhB6EiwA8EQVLr47EqsO8r6_-9XuzhPk1rWVqZm4V1FtXDUD_FWKiTxINNDBNTM4RxoCWRwQAvD_BwE

In this episode, my guest is Marc Andreessen, the legendary software innovator who co-created the internet browser Mosaic, co-founded Netscape, and is now at Andreessen Horowitz — a venture capital firm that finds and brings to life technologies that transform humanity. We discuss what it takes to be a true innovator, including the personality traits required, the role of environment and the support systems needed to bring revolutionary ideas to fruition. We discuss risk-taking as a necessary but potentially hazardous trait, as well as the role of intrinsic motivation and one's ability to navigate uncertainty. We also discuss artificial intelligence (AI) and Marc's stance that soon everyone will use AI as their personalized coach and guide for making decisions about their health, relationships, finances and more — all of which he believes will greatly enhance our quality of life. We also delve into nuclear power, gene editing, public trust, universities, politics, and AI regulation. This episode is for those interested in the innovative mind, psychology, human behavior, technology, culture and politics. For the full show notes, including articles, books, and other resources, visit hubermanlab.com. Thank you to our sponsors AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman LMNT: https://drinklmnt.com/huberman Eight Sleep: https://eightsleep.com/huberman InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/huberman Momentous: https://livemomentous.com/huberman Timestamps (00:00:00) Marc Andreessen (00:03:02) Sponsors: LMNT & Eight Sleep (00:06:05) Personality Traits of an Innovator (00:12:49) Disagreeableness, Social Resistance; Loneliness & Group Think  (00:18:48) Testing for Innovators, Silicon Valley (00:23:18) Unpredictability, Pre-Planning, Pivot (00:28:53) Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Motivation, Social Comparison (00:32:52) Sponsor: AG1 (00:33:49) Innovators & Personal Relationships (00:39:24) Risk Taking, Innovators, “Martyrs to Civilizational Progress” (00:46:16) Cancel Culture, Public vs. Elite (00:53:08) Elites & Institutions, Trust (00:57:38) Sponsor: InsideTracker (00:58:44) Social Media, Shifts in Public vs. Elite  (01:05:45) Reform & Institutions, Universities vs. Business (00:14:14) Traditional Systems, Lysenkoism, Gen X (01:20:56) Alternative University; Great Awakenings; Survivorship Bias  (01:27:25) History of Computers, Neural Network, Artificial Intelligence (AI) (01:35:50) Apple vs. Google, Input Data Set, ChatGPT (01:42:08) Deep Fakes, Registries, Public-Key Cryptography; Quantum Internet (01:46:46) AI Positive Benefits, Medicine, Man & Machine Partnership (01:52:18) AI as Best-Self Coach; AI Modalities (01:59:19) Gene Editing, Precautionary Principle, Nuclear Power (02:05:38) Project Independence, Nuclear Power, Environmentalism (02:12:40) Concerns about AI (02:18:00) Future of AI, Government Policy, Europe, US & China (02:23:47) China Businesses, Politics; Gene Editing  (02:28:38) Marketing, Moral Panic & New Technology; Politics, Podcasts & AI (02:39:03) Innovator Development, Courage, Support  (02:46:36) Small Groups vs. Large Organization, Agility; “Wild Ducks” (02:54:50) Zero-Cost Support, YouTube Feedback, Spotify & Apple Reviews, Sponsors, Momentous, Neural Network Newsletter, Social Media  Title Card Photo Credit: Mike Blabac Disclaimer

Protection from untested interventions has long been the basis for ethical decisions in medicine and especially pregnancy. So what happened? Blyss & Dr. Stu discuss the wisdom of Naturopathy and the attack on longstanding principles and wisdom from many fronts. ACOG changes ethics and the Arrive Trial isn't all that we were sold.In this episode, Dr. Stu and Blyss cover the ACOG Committee Statement No. 6: Ethical Considerations for the Delivery of Obstetric and Gynecologic Care During a Pandemic.They scrutinize the risks associated with untested products for pregnant and breastfeeding women, the ethics of using such products, and heartrending news of sudden cardiac events in young people. The ebbs and flows of this conversation lead to the significance of finding a healthcare provider that resonates with your beliefs.Key highlights:Vaccines, Child Visits, and Medical EthicsCorruption in the Medical WorldNature's Importance and Preventive ActionsEthics and Vaccination in a PandemicThe ARRIVE Trial's Impact on Induction RatesEpisode resources:Ethical Considerations for the Delivery of Obstetric and Gynecologic Care During a PandemicEffects of the ARRIVE Trial on Elective Induction and Obstetric Outcomes in Term Nulliparous PatientsThis show is supported by:LMNT | Go to drinklmnt.com/birthinginstincts to get a free sample pack with every orderNeeded | Use code BIRTHINGINSTINCTS for 20% off your first month or first 3 months of a one-month subscription at thisisneeded.com.BIRTHFIT | Go to birthfit.com and use the code INSTINCTS1 for a discount on the Basics Prenatal program, or INSTINCTS2 for a discount on the Basics Postpartum program.Connect with Dr. Stu & Blyss:Instagram: @birthinginstincts / @birthingblyssWebsite: birthinginstincts.com / birthingblyss.comEmail: birthinginstinctspodcast@gmail.com Call-in line: 805-399-0439

Value: After Hours is a podcast about value investing, Fintwit, and all things finance and investment by investors Tobias Carlisle and Jake Taylor. See our latest episodes at https://acquirersmultiple.com/  About Bill: Bill runs Sullimar Capital Group, a family investment firm. Bill's website: https://sullimarcapital.group/ Bill's Twitter: @BillBrewsterTBB About Jake: Journalytic Jake is a partner at Farnam Street: http://farnam-street.com/vah Jake's podcast: https://twitter.com/5_GQs Jake's Twitter: https://twitter.com/farnamjake1 Jake's book: The Rebel Allocator https://amzn.to/2sgip3l About Bill: Bill runs Sullimar Capital Group, a family investment firm. Bill's website: https://sullimarcapital.group/ Bill's Twitter: @BillBrewsterSCG ABOUT THE PODCAST Hi, I'm Tobias Carlisle. I launched The Acquirers Podcast to discuss the process of finding undervalued stocks, deep value investing, hedge funds, activism, buyouts, and special situations. We uncover the tactics and strategies for finding good investments, managing risk, dealing with bad luck, and maximizing success. SEE LATEST EPISODES https://acquirersmultiple.com/podcast/ SEE OUR FREE DEEP VALUE STOCK SCREENER https://acquirersmultiple.com/screener/ FOLLOW TOBIAS Website: https://acquirersmultiple.com/ Firm: https://acquirersfunds.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Greenbackd LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tobycarlisle Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tobiascarlisle Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tobias_carlisle ABOUT TOBIAS CARLISLE Tobias Carlisle is the founder of The Acquirer's Multiple®, and Acquirers Funds®. He is best known as the author of the #1 new release in Amazon's Business and Finance The Acquirer's Multiple: How the Billionaire Contrarians of Deep Value Beat the Market, the Amazon best-sellers Deep Value: Why Activists Investors and Other Contrarians Battle for Control of Losing Corporations (2014) (https://amzn.to/2VwvAGF), Quantitative Value: A Practitioner's Guide to Automating Intelligent Investment and Eliminating Behavioral Errors (2012) (https://amzn.to/2SDDxrN), and Concentrated Investing: Strategies of the World's Greatest Concentrated Value Investors (2016) (https://amzn.to/2SEEjVn). He has extensive experience in investment management, business valuation, public company corporate governance, and corporate law. Prior to founding the forerunner to Acquirers Funds in 2010, Tobias was an analyst at an activist hedge fund, general counsel of a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, and a corporate advisory lawyer. As a lawyer specializing in mergers and acquisitions he has advised on transactions across a variety of industries in the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Australia, Singapore, Bermuda, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, and Guam.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb), the author of “The Black Swan” and “Antifragile," joins episode 83 of The Julia La Roche show alongside veteran Wall Street Journal reporter Scott Patterson (@pattersonscott), author of “Chaos Kings: How Wall Street Traders Make Billions In the New Age of Crisis.”  “Chaos Kings,” which features Taleb, recounts the story of Universa Investments, a Miami-based investment firm specializing in risk mitigation, deploying a tail-risk hedging strategy to limit losses from an outsized market event, like a Black Swan. Taleb is the Distinguished Scientific Advisor at Universa. Led by Mark Spitznagel, Universa is among the best-performing investment managers of the last 15 years, reaping massive gains from market crashes. During the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, Universa delivered a stunning 4,000% return during the first quarter when markets sharply sold off. The firm has posted a 15-year average annual return on capital north of 100%. 0:00 Show open 1:00 Chaos Kings story  6:40 A problem with infrequent but large losses   9:45 Precautionary Principle  12:29 Tail risk hedging  15:30 Flaws of modern finance  17:17 Mark Spitznagel learning to “love to lose”  19:00 Fragilities, hidden risks, big picture macro environment  23:43 Addressing misconceptions around Black Swans  25:30 Optionality  30:16 Experience and execution of the strategy  31:49 Black Swans v. Dragon Kings  34:30 Predicting an event is one thing; benefitting is another thing 36:00 Sornette's Dragon Kings  38:50 Universa's 4,000% gain  41:45 Getting to know Nassim Taleb  46:01 Rethinking investing  49:01 New age of crisis  54:40 Parting thoughts 

 In this episode, we dive deep into his latest piece on 'Why AI Will Save the World'. We get into the piece and some of the critiques and really go all out. 0:00 Intro1:31 Discussing “Why AI Will Save the World” 2:40 The Baptists and the Bootleggers of AI Doomerism in Washington D.C5:49 Private Truths and Public Lies8:54 The Parallels between Prohibition and AI11:27 Why AI is a Positive Force for Society13:22 AI: Artificial Intelligence or Augmented Intelligence?15:50 Definining intelligence20:46 Marc's Definition of Superintelligence25:11 How Marc and his 8 Year Old Son use ChatGPT28:43 What would it mean if you had an AI that was as smart as Einstein?30:06 Marc's counter response to Why AI won't kill us all31:07 Marc's response to AI as a runaway process/orthogonality thesis38:07 On Hostile Powers Using AI38:38 The Precautionary Principle and Fire40:37 Parallels between AI and Nuclear Weapons?46:29 The Two AI Counterfactuals that worry Marc48:52 China's intentions with AI52:07 Intelligent Design's Impact on Humanity55:31 Why is open source important to AI?58:31 Marc's Advice to Founders in AI1:01:00 What Marc would say to World Leaders about AI1:04:22 Cultural Portrayals of AI1:13:15 What is the next step for ChatGPT?1:18:50 Data's Role in AI Advancement1:22:18 Synthetic Data and AI1:26:44 How ChatGPT Impacts Education1:33:58 Does AI take the place of human relationships? 1:37:35 Defining “Immanentize the Eschaton” 1:46:26 Marc's Favorite ChatGPT Prompts 

The Other Side of the Story with Tom Harris – Climate activists say that we must follow the “Precautionary Principle” and phase out all fossil fuel use to “save the climate.” To do otherwise is reckless, they warn. But they are the ones being reckless, advocating that we eliminate the reliable, inexpensive energy sources that allowed us to grow to 8 billion souls. Despite the fact that there has...

The Other Side of the Story with Tom Harris – Climate activists say that we must follow the “Precautionary Principle” and phase out all fossil fuel use to “save the climate.” To do otherwise is reckless, they warn. But they are the ones being reckless, advocating that we eliminate the reliable, inexpensive energy sources that allowed us to grow to 8 billion souls. Despite the fact that there has...

How can we merge the concepts of slippery slopes and the precautionary principle? James Andow explains how precautionary evaluation of risks can help us evaluate both the risks of ending up on a slippery slope to deployment, and the risks resulting from deployment. James argues that we need to concern ourselves with risks, not just inevitabilities, when considering slippery slopes. For additional reading discussed, see books "Innate" and "the WEIRDest people in the world". Paper: "Slippery Slope Arguments as Precautionary Arguments: A New Way of Understanding the Concern about Geoengineering Research" (https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/pre-prints/content-whp_ev_3729)

In this episode I'd like to explore the impacts of the precautionary principle in public policy.  Many people think that the precautionary principle is the safest way forward. We shouldn't use a tool until we're sure that it won't harm us. This just makes sense, doesn't it? The application of the precautionary principle in European energy policy, for example, has lead to the shut down of Germany's nuclear fleet, strong labelling laws for GMO products, and many other decisions of which I am not yet aware. Today I'll be interviewing an economist who has a unique interdisciplinary perspective on the environment, health, and labor economics to get an expert opinion on this topic. I came across his insightful work as references in a Freakonomics podcast episode titled, “nuclear energy isn't perfect. Is it good enough?'. Matthew Neidell is an economics professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.  He is also a faculty member with the Earth Institute and the Columbia Population Research Center. Neidell received his PhD in economics from UCLA and has performed policy work for various organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Institute of Medicine, Rockefeller Foundation, and World Bank He specializes in environmental, health, and labor economics, applying the latest empirical methods to examine the relationship between the environment and a wide range of measures of well-being, including worker productivity and human capital, and how human behavior affects these relationships. Support more penetrating public policy perspectives at patron.podbean.com/therationalview Join the Facebook discussion @TheRationalView Twitter @AlScottRational Instagram @The_Rational_View #TheRationalView #podcast #precautionaryprinciple #nuclearpower #publicpolicy #environment #energytransition #greenenergy #atomicenergy

Is virtue signalling behind damaging EU environmental policy? In this Swift Half with Snowdon, IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics Christopher Snowdon speaks to EU regulations blogger David Zaruk. David been an EU risk and science communications specialist since 2000, active in EU policy events from REACH and SCALE to the Pesticides Directive, from Science in Society questions to the use of the Precautionary Principle. They discuss a variety of topics ranging from anti-pesticide NGOs to the demonisation of industry professionals in general. David's blog, 'The Risk-Monger', can be read here: https://risk-monger.com/  

Cass R. Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. From 2009 to 2012, he was Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He is the founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School. Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has been involved in constitution-making and law reform activities in a number of nations. Mr. Sunstein is author of many articles and books, including Republic.com (2001), Risk and Reason (2002), Why Societies Need Dissent (2003), The Second Bill of Rights (2004), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), Worst-Case Scenarios (2001), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (with Richard H. Thaler, 2008), Simpler: The Future of Government (2013) and most recently Why Nudge? (2014) and Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas (2014).

Podcast: Meeting of Minds Podcast (LS 30 · TOP 5% )Episode: Peter Thiel: “The State Contains Violence”Release date: 2022-09-29Peter Thiel, arguably the most successful tech investor of modern times, also reads widely and thinks deeply about philosophy and theology. In a fascinating follow-up to his previous interview about his mentor, Rene Girard, Thiel discusses how modern ideologies such as fascism and communism "up the dose" from murder to genocide as Christianity weakened the power of human sacrifice.  He also discusses how progressive ideologies are "stronger moves" than fascistic or reactionary ones because they weaponize Christianity's concern for victims. Thiel talks about how the state, with its origins in paganism, restrains violence by using violence and how Christians might navigate that dilemma by engaging politically but not becoming excessively entangled by it.  Finally, Thiel points out how those who promise to protect us from Apocalypse can actually accelerate its coming.  Timestamps: 01:08    Girard, Scapegoating04:00    Mimetic copies: Hitler and Stalin, Nazism and Communism, Fascism05:30    Wokeism, Christianity, and Academia10:40    Wokeism in cities, response to real estate costs. Structural Wokeism14:27    Winning and losing postures towards wokeism17:10    Wokeism is Christianity without the forgiveness18:30    Acknowledging sin even when it enables critics21:55    Holocaust as the ultimate test of forgiveness, destroying the concept of forgiveness25:52    Ignorance and forgiveness27:55    Gospels as deconstruction of philosophy32:05    Getting tangled in politics. Government and violence33:55    Can leaders behave like Christians?35:37    The katechon and accelerationism. Preterism and futurism.39:10    The Antichrist as a false katechon41:14    The Precautionary Principle: technological Armageddon45:15    Enabling Fascism to fight Communism46:12    Reagan coalition49:30    Christianity and mimetic entanglement, political atheism54:30    How much can people change?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Podcast: Meeting of Minds Podcast Episode: Peter Thiel: “The State Contains Violence”Release date: 2022-09-29Peter Thiel, arguably the most successful tech investor of modern times, also reads widely and thinks deeply about philosophy and theology. In a fascinating follow-up to his previous interview about his mentor, Rene Girard, Thiel discusses how modern ideologies such as fascism and communism "up the dose" from murder to genocide as Christianity weakened the power of human sacrifice.  He also discusses how progressive ideologies are "stronger moves" than fascistic or reactionary ones because they weaponize Christianity's concern for victims. Thiel talks about how the state, with its origins in paganism, restrains violence by using violence and how Christians might navigate that dilemma by engaging politically but not becoming excessively entangled by it.  Finally, Thiel points out how those who promise to protect us from Apocalypse can actually accelerate its coming.  Timestamps: 01:08    Girard, Scapegoating04:00    Mimetic copies: Hitler and Stalin, Nazism and Communism, Fascism05:30    Wokeism, Christianity, and Academia10:40    Wokeism in cities, response to real estate costs. Structural Wokeism14:27    Winning and losing postures towards wokeism17:10    Wokeism is Christianity without the forgiveness18:30    Acknowledging sin even when it enables critics21:55    Holocaust as the ultimate test of forgiveness, destroying the concept of forgiveness25:52    Ignorance and forgiveness27:55    Gospels as deconstruction of philosophy32:05    Getting tangled in politics. Government and violence33:55    Can leaders behave like Christians?35:37    The katechon and accelerationism. Preterism and futurism.39:10    The Antichrist as a false katechon41:14    The Precautionary Principle: technological Armageddon45:15    Enabling Fascism to fight Communism46:12    Reagan coalition49:30    Christianity and mimetic entanglement, political atheism54:30    How much can people change?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Peter Thiel, arguably the most successful tech investor of modern times, also reads widely and thinks deeply about philosophy and theology. In a fascinating follow-up to his previous interview about his mentor, Rene Girard, Thiel discusses how modern ideologies such as fascism and communism "up the dose" from murder to genocide as Christianity weakened the power of human sacrifice.  He also discusses how progressive ideologies are "stronger moves" than fascistic or reactionary ones because they weaponize Christianity's concern for victims. Thiel talks about how the state, with its origins in paganism, restrains violence by using violence and how Christians might navigate that dilemma by engaging politically but not becoming excessively entangled by it.  Finally, Thiel points out how those who promise to protect us from Apocalypse can actually accelerate its coming.  Timestamps: 01:08    Girard, Scapegoating04:00    Mimetic copies: Hitler and Stalin, Nazism and Communism, Fascism05:30    Wokeism, Christianity, and Academia10:40    Wokeism in cities, response to real estate costs. Structural Wokeism14:27    Winning and losing postures towards wokeism17:10    Wokeism is Christianity without the forgiveness18:30    Acknowledging sin even when it enables critics21:55    Holocaust as the ultimate test of forgiveness, destroying the concept of forgiveness25:52    Ignorance and forgiveness27:55    Gospels as deconstruction of philosophy32:05    Getting tangled in politics. Government and violence33:55    Can leaders behave like Christians?35:37    The katechon and accelerationism. Preterism and futurism.39:10    The Antichrist as a false katechon41:14    The Precautionary Principle: technological Armageddon45:15    Enabling Fascism to fight Communism46:12    Reagan coalition49:30    Christianity and mimetic entanglement, political atheism54:30    How much can people change?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

2/20/22 AM - The Lord's Prayer - Part 1 | "Precautionary Principle of Prayer" | Pastor Paul McGee

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Long Long Covid Post, published by Zvi on February 10, 2022 on LessWrong. A while back I mentioned I'd aim to write a longer post on Long Covid and Katja Grace's post on it. This is that post. First I deal with Katja's post, then Scott Alexander's Long Covid: Much More Than You Wanted to Know. My core model of Long Covid after writing this post: Long Covid is real, but less common than many worry it is. Reports of Long Covid are often people who have symptoms, then blame them on Long Covid whether or not they even had Covid. The exception is loss of taste and smell. Long Covid severity and risk is proportional to Covid severity and risk. If you didn't notice you had Covid, you're at very very low risk for developing Long Covid. Vaccination is thus highly but incompletely protective against Long Covid. Children are thus at minimal risk. Omicron is thus less likely to cause serious Long Covid than Delta. My current estimate of the forward-looking-practical-use chance of a healthy non-elderly person getting serious, life-impacting Long Covid from a case of Omicron is about 0.2%, or 1 in 500. This number will decline further once Paxlovid is readily available. Long Covid remains the primary downside of contracting Covid while young and healthy. Diseases often have long-term negative health effects. Long Covid is not fundamentally so different from Long Other Disease. If you are worried going forward about Long Covid you should consider things like permanently not living in a city to avoid diseases. A lot of people are in poor health. It is likely worthwhile to treat your health a lot more seriously than most people do, irrespective of Covid. The Precautionary Principle carries some weight in all this. Remember that the chance of preventing a Covid case via additional Covid prevention, going forward, even with extreme measures, is not all that high. If you compare the potential costs of Long Covid to the costs of Long Covid Prevention, it is obvious the second is a bigger threat. Short-term additional vigilance is reasonable but rapidly becoming less reasonable. Using Long Covid as a reason for not returning to normal once case levels come down would not be reasonable. Katja's Post This may or may not be entirely fair, but I am going to use Katja Grace's post on LessWrong as a steelman of the case for worrying about Long Covid. It is by a thinker I respect, and is clearly advocating for the side of ‘be worried,' and seems to aim to be exhaustive. It doesn't cover every concern I've heard, but it's a lot of them. I'm placing sufficient stock by her selection process that I will focus in detail on the ones she includes. Katja assigns letters A-R to her points, and I deal with these in order. Before I begin, I'll summarize my takeaways so you can decide which sections you want to read or skip, and have perspective on what you are reading, if you want to go in non-blind. A, B, C and D establish that Long Covid exists but don't make the case about frequency or causation that they might seem to be making. They do establish that a lot of people have a lot of chronic health conditions. E is effectively punted to the section on Scott's post since it talks about Scott's estimate. F, G and H are a claim that there is a bunch of ‘dark matter' style damage being done and that it manifests in lots of additional deaths that aren't attributed to Covid. The population statistics don't match up with this, and I consider these to be selection effects or otherwise non-causal. I reminds us that lesser outcomes can also be concerning but I don't see how they can be that big a share of the overall problem. J asks about future unknowns. Given how much time has now passed, and what I see as the relevant reference classes, I don't think we need worry about this going foward, but precautionary ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Long Long Covid Post, published by Zvi on February 10, 2022 on LessWrong. A while back I mentioned I'd aim to write a longer post on Long Covid and Katja Grace's post on it. This is that post. First I deal with Katja's post, then Scott Alexander's Long Covid: Much More Than You Wanted to Know. My core model of Long Covid after writing this post: Long Covid is real, but less common than many worry it is. Reports of Long Covid are often people who have symptoms, then blame them on Long Covid whether or not they even had Covid. The exception is loss of taste and smell. Long Covid severity and risk is proportional to Covid severity and risk. If you didn't notice you had Covid, you're at very very low risk for developing Long Covid. Vaccination is thus highly but incompletely protective against Long Covid. Children are thus at minimal risk. Omicron is thus less likely to cause serious Long Covid than Delta. My current estimate of the forward-looking-practical-use chance of a healthy non-elderly person getting serious, life-impacting Long Covid from a case of Omicron is about 0.2%, or 1 in 500. This number will decline further once Paxlovid is readily available. Long Covid remains the primary downside of contracting Covid while young and healthy. Diseases often have long-term negative health effects. Long Covid is not fundamentally so different from Long Other Disease. If you are worried going forward about Long Covid you should consider things like permanently not living in a city to avoid diseases. A lot of people are in poor health. It is likely worthwhile to treat your health a lot more seriously than most people do, irrespective of Covid. The Precautionary Principle carries some weight in all this. Remember that the chance of preventing a Covid case via additional Covid prevention, going forward, even with extreme measures, is not all that high. If you compare the potential costs of Long Covid to the costs of Long Covid Prevention, it is obvious the second is a bigger threat. Short-term additional vigilance is reasonable but rapidly becoming less reasonable. Using Long Covid as a reason for not returning to normal once case levels come down would not be reasonable. Katja's Post This may or may not be entirely fair, but I am going to use Katja Grace's post on LessWrong as a steelman of the case for worrying about Long Covid. It is by a thinker I respect, and is clearly advocating for the side of ‘be worried,' and seems to aim to be exhaustive. It doesn't cover every concern I've heard, but it's a lot of them. I'm placing sufficient stock by her selection process that I will focus in detail on the ones she includes. Katja assigns letters A-R to her points, and I deal with these in order. Before I begin, I'll summarize my takeaways so you can decide which sections you want to read or skip, and have perspective on what you are reading, if you want to go in non-blind. A, B, C and D establish that Long Covid exists but don't make the case about frequency or causation that they might seem to be making. They do establish that a lot of people have a lot of chronic health conditions. E is effectively punted to the section on Scott's post since it talks about Scott's estimate. F, G and H are a claim that there is a bunch of ‘dark matter' style damage being done and that it manifests in lots of additional deaths that aren't attributed to Covid. The population statistics don't match up with this, and I consider these to be selection effects or otherwise non-causal. I reminds us that lesser outcomes can also be concerning but I don't see how they can be that big a share of the overall problem. J asks about future unknowns. Given how much time has now passed, and what I see as the relevant reference classes, I don't think we need worry about this going foward, but precautionary ...

Thanks for listening to the BattleFest podcast - you can support us by subscribing, sharing and leaving us a review. Check back next week for more recordings from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021. IS IT TIME TO RETHINK THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE? A new #BattleFest recording from the Battle of Ideas festival 2021: https://www.battleofideas.org.uk/session/is-it-time-to-rethink-the-precautionary-principle/ Can we treat decisions about something like a pandemic in the same way as those to do with the environment and new technologies, like artificial intelligence? Or has this pandemic shown us that we need to consider each new threat in a more holistic way, considering the economy, well-being and people's freedoms as much as the direct threat to health? Is it time to finally depoliticise precaution and treat each case as unique? Or with political alignments becoming as important as the dispassionate assessment of risk, will the precautionary principle remain another victim of the all-encompassing ‘culture wars'?

Interviews with former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and adjunct professor David Zaruk. Mark Sanford is a statesman who served as the governor of the state of South Carolina and served as the U.S. representative for South Carolina's 1st congressional district from 1995 to 2001. David Zaruk is an adjunct professor at Vesalius College and Facultés Universitaires St-Louis and has been an EU risk and science communications specialist since 2001, active in EU policy events from REACH and SCALE to the Pesticides Directive, from Science in Society questions to the use of the Precautionary Principle. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/10/15/risk-hazard-and-precautionary-principle-why-europe-gets-crop-biotechnology-and-chemical-regulation-so-wrong/ Broadcast on Consumer Choice Radio on December 31, 2021. Syndicated on Sauga 960AM and Big Talker 106.7FM. Website: https://consumerchoiceradio.com ***PODCAST***  Podcast Index: https://bit.ly/3EJSIs3 Apple: http://apple.co/2G7avA8  Spotify: http://spoti.fi/3iXIKIS Our podcast is now Podcasting 2.0 compliant! Listen to the show using a #Bitcoin lightning wallet-enabled podcasting app (Breeze, Fountain, etc.) to directly donate to the show using the Bitcoin lightning network (stream those sats!).  More information on that here: https://podcastindex.org/apps  Produced by the Consumer Choice Center.  Support us: https://consumerchoicecenter.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We start looking at campaigners taking court action against governments for failing their climate targets - and whether this should these battles take place in court.  There's been a few cases of COVID at Forest Green Rovers, so we talk about what's ahead for the rest of the season.  Reindeers are starving in Lapland because of climate change - will they still be here in Christmases to come?  We talk about the sell-out debut of Sky Diamonds and what's next for Dale's latest project.  We also hear about Sea Snot for the first time - it won't be the last. 

Cass R. Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard. He is the founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard Law School. In 2018, he received the Holberg Prize from the government of Norway, sometimes described as the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for law and the humanities. In 2020, the World Health Organization appointed him as Chair of its technical advisory group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health. From 2009 to 2012, he was Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and after that, he served on the President's Review Board on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and on the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Board. Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and has advised officials at the United Nations, the European Commission, the World Bank, and many nations on issues of law and public policy. He serves as an adviser to the Behavioural Insights Team in the United Kingdom. He is currently employed by the Department of Homeland Security to work on the Biden Administration's climate and immigration policies.

Interviews with former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and adjunct professor David Zaruk. Mark Sanford is a statesman who served as the governor of the state of South Carolina and served as the U.S. representative for South Carolina's 1st congressional district from 1995 to 2001. David Zaruk is an adjunct professor at Vesalius College and Facultés Universitaires St-Louis and has been an EU risk and science communications specialist since 2001, active in EU policy events from REACH and SCALE to the Pesticides Directive, from Science in Society questions to the use of the Precautionary Principle. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/10/15/risk-hazard-and-precautionary-principle-why-europe-gets-crop-biotechnology-and-chemical-regulation-so-wrong/ Broadcast on Consumer Choice Radio on October 23, 2021. Radio: http://sauga960am.ca Radio: http://bigtalkerfm.com  Website: http://consumerchoiceradio.com ***PODCAST***  Apple: http://apple.co/2G7avA8  Spotify: http://spoti.fi/3iXIKIS  Produced by the Consumer Choice Center. Support the show: http://consumerchoicecenter.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying join Bridget to discuss their latest book A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century . They have a fascinating conversation covering how so much in evolutionary biology is obvious in retrospect, why an explicitly scientific and evolutionary understanding of who we are as humans doesn't take away the sense of awe or miraculousness of our humanity, and how the rate of change we are living through now is so great that there's really no comparison to any other point in human history. They discuss the Precautionary Principle, the function of religion, the fourth frontier, organic food, hyper-novelty, banishing your fear, what makes a good partner, and the Omega Principle. Be sure to check out their DarkHorse Podcast for more in-dept h conversations with them both.

Flagship Interview Podcast:

When people consider the harms which might be caused by technology, they often point to the "precautionary principle" as a possible way to mitigate those harms. This principle seems straight forward but once you actually try to apply it the difficulties become obvious. In particular how do you ensure that you're not delaying the introduction of beneficial technologies. How do you insure the harms of delaying technology are not greater than the harms which might be caused by that technology. In this episode we examine several examples of how this principle might be applied. It isn't easy, but it does seem like something we need to master as new technologies continue to arrive.

Mother, Author, Researcher ‘What is happening behind the curtain?' The UN Agendas, the World Economic Forum - Your Future? Giving a wider understanding of the issues facing us today, both in NZ and globally. Worth your while to listen to the whole interview. Author of ‘We are Revolting' and her new book just out ‘Under the Shadow', Antoinette lays the groundwork of her research as to what is happening on a global scale. She says she is a big picture person.  The fact that over the years, our NZ Governments, both left and right have signed us on to the United Nations Agenda21 and Agenda23 that have slipped through without there being a public discourse or debate and education of ‘we the people' as to what does this all translate into. Why the silence and why have our elected representatives not mentioned this to their constituents? Especially as this all started back in 1992. Then there is the question of what's the game plan being acted out under cover of the Covid crisis? Where and where does the World Economic Forum from Davos in Switzerland put the ‘Great Reset' in place. Where the cashless society comes into being, that by 2030 ‘we will own nothing and we will be happy' - how about - full of Joy!  Note, that both our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister have attended the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Yet a quietened NZ MSM, ‘soothed with ample funding' from our Government discreetly looks the other way.    This is what happened - the Fourth Estate (your Media) have remained silent and tight lipped.  www.AntoinetteJames.com   With a new book just out: UNDER THE SHADOW: Agenda 21 in New Zealand New Zealand National and Labour governments have collaborated in binding the country to UN goals. National Prime Minister Jim Bolger signed Agenda 21 in 1992, without democratic debate! Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark rolled-out NCEA underpinned with UN Common Core Curriculum goals in the early 2000s, without democratic debate! National Prime Minister John Key signed Agenda 2030 in 2015, without democratic debate! Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern authored New Zealand's first Voluntary National Review 2019: An audit of the country's progress and commitment to UN 2030 dictatorship, without democratic debate! Every New Zealander's life is going to change for the worse. UNDER THE SHADOW is a 314-page exposé of Agenda 21/2030 outcomes and projections in New Zealand. This publication has over 300 quotes and citations from many documents, publications, speeches and statements. Under the Shadow gives the Agenda backstory, names the architects, explains the ideology and exposes the elites main driving force. Copies of UNDER THE SHADOW can be purchased on AMAZON or for New Zealand postal addresses, directly from the author - $35 plus P&P Having presented this info at many public meetings last year, I found the tree metaphor became an easy way to untangle while putting a handle on the very historic and complicated UN tiptoe to Agenda 2030.  This is the contents to give you a feel to what is covered - Preamble.…………………………………………………...9 Life Under the Shadow of Agenda 21..................………..15                       Religious Roots…………………....……….21                       Isms…………………………………….….....28                      One World Religion………………….…......36 Grafting of Agenda 21………………………………...........39                     Arborists………………………………………39                               Arthur Balfour……………………...…...39                               Alger Hiss………………………..….…..40                               Successive Popes………….….……….....40                               Alice Bailey……………………..…..…....43                               David Spangler……………………....…..45                               Maurice Strong…………………....……..46                               Benjamin Crème………………..……......50                               Robert Muller…………………..……......51                               Pierre Teilhard Chardin……………....….52                               U Thant………………………………....54                               House of Rothschild….……………...….55                               House of Rockefeller……………...…….58                      Hothouse effect………………...…….….….....65                               UN prayer Room………………....……..65                               Ark of Hope……………………....…….65                               Earth Charter………………...……….....67                               Gaia and the Temple of Understanding....70                               Burning Bush………………………..….71                               “Church”……………………...…….…..72 Different Pots Same Plant…..….……….…….………....…..76                       League of Nations……………..……………..76                       United Nations………………………………78                       Rio Earth Summit…………………..………..84 Agenda 21 Metaphor….................….….….……...….....….....89                      The Roots….……………………..……..........90                              Of manipulation…………………….…..90                              Of indoctrination…………………...........91                              Of propaganda…………………………..91                              Of coercion…………………..………….92                                      The Trunk……..……………....………….…111                              Social Justice……………………….…...116                              Economic Justice…………………….…119                              Environmental Justice……………….….120                       The Branches………….……….……..……..126                              Earth Charter……………………….…..126                              IUCN…………………………....……...127                              ICLEI……………………………….….132                       The Fruit………......……….………..….........136                               NZ Voluntary National Review………..137                               Ardern, Goal Keepers Address………...139                               Sustainable Development Goals……….143                               SDG 1………………………...…….…144                               SDG 2…………………………...….…146                               SDG 3………………………….….…..151                               SDG 4………………………….…..….152                               SDG 5……………………………..…..157                               SDG 6……………………………....…159                               SDG 7…………………………..….….164                               SDG 8………………………………....172                               SDG 9………………………………....181                               SDG 10…………………………….….185                               SDG 11………………………………..189                               SDG 12………………………………..194                               SDG 13………………………………..198                               SDG 14………………………………..205                               SDG 15…………………………....…...209                               SDG 16………………………………..215                               SDG 17………………………………..220                               SDG 18 kept secret……………………224                               Kiwi Fruit…………………………..….230                               Waikato Initiative…………………..…..230                               Wilding…………………………..…….235                                Urban property grab…………….……241                                Smart Growth……………….………..249                                Significant Nature Areas……....……….250                       Fertiliser……………….....…..................…….254                                 Think Globally………………...….…..254                                  Millennium Declaration……….……..254                                  Publicprivate Partnerships…….….….256                       Staking………………………………….…..260                              Hegelian Dialectic…………….……..…260                              Delphi Technique…………….…..…….261                              Gaslighting…………………….…….…263                              Precautionary Principle………..……......266                      Pruning………………………….………….270                        Weeding………………………………........272                              Protestant Christianity…………..……..272                              Thinkers……………………………….273                              Nationalism……………………………275                              Truth…………………………………..275 Time to fortify the Pa……………………………………..279 Axe to the Root: TIMBER!........................................................293   Final Word………………………………………………..303 Of course COVID, WEF, AI all fit into the jigsaw puzzle of secrecy and word trickery. I am a "big picture" commentator. Understanding the big picture makes it easier to understand the incremental steps by our gov and councils to ultimate end-game of communism that will best be described as a 'technocratic oligarchical scientific dictatorship'. Antoinette has also written another book in 2019 called WE ARE REVOLTING: ‘A Red Pill Read'  Paperback – January 4, 2019 · Kindle $14.99 Read with Our Free App · Paperback $35.26.  Antoinette states that in 2019 the Prime Minister of NZ wrote NZ's First Voluntary National Review to the United Nations - which is basically an audit of NZ and saying to the UN bosses where we are at, as a country. She says that it has all the basic feel good language - but behind that are ‘word definitions' - and that there is a lot of word trickery going on. Shared Responsibility and Public Private  - what do these words really mean? That key words are frequently placed in this Agenda's schedule - words that give us the ‘feel good vibe' such as ‘wellbeing' and the question is posited what does the word ‘wellbeing' translate to for the elite at the top of the UN, plus bankers and movers and shakers? What does ‘wellbeing' mean to the elite at the top of the pyramid of power? Have a listen - because what Antoinette says is very important for us all to take in. From Tims point of view as the interviewer  - I did not want to get in and argue points - I was instead offering a platform that is based on Freedom of Expression - and I know that we are being limited as time passes. Whereas as Antionette says, as a Christian that we need to be taking care of human life. That we are sacred beings - (Tim believes we are souls inhabiting bodies - (see his previous interviews about souls and near death and out of the body  experiences.) Note that in most cases Atheists refuse to debate this). Antoinette states that we are in the decade of eco restoration and that is a very good thing in Tims estimation - however it's all about how the top of the ‘pyramid of power' is going about doing this. So this is a very important point to understand - we need both - but how the Agenda's are being promulgated is that the Governments are making no effort to educate the public. There is no use of the Fourth Estate to educate humanity of what is the issue and what is at stake here. There is a balance … we have to take in the precautionary principle in situations - like the non growing of Genetically Engineered  food in NZ  - But, when it comes to Covid the authorities are not following this themselves. Because in NZ for example, the Pfizer injection has not been passed as safe by the FDA and that it is still in an ‘experimental phase' as per Med Safe here in NZ. so there is a huge in-congruence with how our elected servants are governing us - some will say ‘ruling us'. The current Government's understanding of Agenda21 according to Antoinette is that their adherence to Agenda21 is to the restoration of the environment as it was before man walked on our planet. This is seen as going too far - too fast - especially with 7.8 billion beings that need water, feeding, housing, health and education - etc. Antoinette mentions Rosa Koire on NZer Vinny Eastwoods show. link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MPKl1yskKs    In this interview Antoinette also mentions:  Bill and Melinda Gates - at the Goal Keepers Conference 2019 - where our Prime Minister commits NZ to the Agenda21 Goals.   That at present NZ is now locking away significant natural areas … But, this is not being done with open transparent, local, and district participation of the land owners and the farming or agricultural community. It is being imposed. This interview talks about top down control coming across NZ's rural sector - South Waikato for instance has been given a plan to control its water - (and we need plans to clean up our water) - however rural people are not being kept in the loop and the authorities are forcing the issue by initiating local bylaws etc without having open discussions with the locals.  This is coming from the top down. This is not localised democracy. Antoinette - stresses that Local Government is not doing the work around having meetings with local rural residents or local town hall meetings and giving people a heads up on what it would like to do or what is actually going on. It all appears to - being put in place and that everyone in the community just has to comply. Like - it's being forced upon the people. The rural sector is about to be managed … where previously in a localised community district or region - ‘we the people' governed ourselves by democratic principles. However this does not appear to be happening.  What we hear in this interview is that we are being ‘Ruled by an elite' - that sees us in many ways as useless eaters and that we do not have a soul … this is why management of the future is being set up - because in many ways we as a society have not been alert and have let our local democratic system deteriorate, by not voting - to such a degree that ‘others' have stepped in and in many ways subtly hijacked the process.  This Interview includes: The Fabian Society and the connection to the Royal Society … Article 61 and the Nuremberg code  He Whakaputanga. The flying of the 1835 Flag, when 34 Maori Chiefs came together to re-emphasise that they were independent.  Antoinette says she raises this flag at her home. This interview covers a vast number of issues that have not been given any coverage or discourse in NZ. Once we in this country were very keen on participating in our young democracy. However, you can see how the voter turnout at local government elections has fallen dramatically over the last 50 years and it is at this level that change is being forced upon us, because there are fewer checks and balances.  Antoinette as a mother and someone who has witnessed the decline in all areas of family, education, health and community life over the decades has decided to make a stand. She has to be acknowledged and empowered for standing up to a system that has lost its way and or been infiltrated. Well worth grappling with the subject matter she brings to us all. Because we are in the grips of and irregular warfare. Mentioned in this interview is the link between 5G and Covid. https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/fixed-wireless-communications-at-60ghz-unique-0001 https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet70/oet70a.pdf Also, that there is in place a new Nuremberg Trial coming due to the unlawful acts of Government and Health officials around Covid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXCG3tXwj4     Dr Reiner Fuellmich    https://reesereport.com/    - 4 minute videos to get the point across. There is an axiom that states - The means justifies the ends, not the ends justifies the means.  You will find that both Facists and Communists will go with ‘the ends justifying the end' - whilst those who believe in virtue and principled morality - will always go with - ‘the means justifying the end.'  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZC0NOljRWQ&t=282s     Vox  2014   Police State Contagion:   NOTES: Tim mentions that in 1992 at the Rio UN Conference in Brazil, that 192 Nations signed up to Agenda 21 - Under the auspices of George Herbert Bush - who as the Head of the CIA spent 12 years in the Whitehouse - 8 years as Vice President and 4 years as President. With his son George W Bush having another 8 years as President in the Whitehouse. What were these insiders doing during this time? www.AntoinetteJames.com

We compare the precautionary principle approach of obsessing over avoiding one negative outcome to the economic way of thinking, which entails examining the seen and unseen consequences of each action, and is a much more sane, safe, and intelligent way of approaching complex issues. We examine two contemporary episodes of global mass hysteria to see how dangerously reckless and counterproductive using the precautionary principle is.

What is the precautionary principle? Thanks for asking! While over 50% of people in the UK have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose, the EU is lagging far behind at 16%. Just two days ago, the World Health Organisation described the rollout in Europe as being “unacceptably slow”. The delays are down to several factors, one of which is the precautionary principle.In mid-March, 18 countries suspended use of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, including some of the EU’s biggest member states like Spain, Germany and France. They cited the precautionary principle as justification. This followed reports of blood clots in some patients who had received a dose of the vaccine. What’s the link between the vaccine and the precautionary principle then? Couldn’t you argue the EU leaders were right to exercise caution? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions!To listen to the last episodes, you can click here:What is poverty porn? What is Stop Asian Hate?Who is Ousmane Sonko?A podcast written and realised by Joseph Chance. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Freeman Dyson in the report from the 2001 World Economic Forum defined the Precautionary Principle as that if some course of action carries even a remote chance of irreparable damage to the ecology, then you shouldn't do it, no matter how great the possible advantages of the action may be. You are not allowed to balance costs against benefits when deciding what to do. In this episode, Ron and Ed will speak about the implications of the precautionary principle on society in general and on business innovation in specific. While COVID19 was (ironically) the catalyst, this is a topic that needs all of our attention and not just during this current situation.

Freeman Dyson in the report from the 2001 World Economic Forum defined the Precautionary Principle as that if some course of action carries even a remote chance of irreparable damage to the ecology, then you shouldn't do it, no matter how great the possible advantages of the action may be. You are not allowed to balance costs against benefits when deciding what to do. In this episode, Ron and Ed will speak about the implications of the precautionary principle on society in general and on business innovation in specific. While COVID19 was (ironically) the catalyst, this is a topic that needs all of our attention and not just during this current situation.

Carolyn Raffensperger has been advocating for the environment since 1982. She's currently executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, and a tireless proponent of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to balancing economic and environmental impacts.

Pertinent re-play from January 8, 2004 on defining the desirable future (and role of government)   Caroline with great ally, embodying environmental justice, executive director of Science and Environment Health Network, Carolyn Raffensperger, animator of The Precautionary Principle, and today's focus: “The Public Trust Doctrine,” as we engage public discourse in defining the desirable function of government (to protect the commons). www.sehn.org   Support The Visionary Activist Show on Patreon for weekly Chart & Themes ($4/month) and more… *Woof*Woof*Wanna*Play?!?* The post Visionary Activist Show – Archives: ‘The Public Trust Doctrine' appeared first on KPFA.

Podcast