Extinction.

(Matthew T., “Regulation of Emerging Risks,” 69 Vand. L. Rev. 401)

In addition to the moral case for the Precautionary model, some scholars argue that there are empirical reasons to take a precautionary approach. They point to the complexity of natural systems and the inherent uncertainty of scientific predictions about how the natural environment will respond to changes.80 Some risks, they contend, involve the possibility of irreversible damage.81 Other risks are catastrophic, on such a scale that any non-precautionary approach would be disastrous.8 2 With the diversity of arguments supporting the Precautionary model, it is unsurprising that there is no consensus on how to operationalize it. What action does the Precautionary Principle require when a technology, like nuclear power, both causes and mitigates risks to the environment or when a new technology, like genetically modified foods, has the potential to both benefit and harm human health? Critics of the Precautionary Principle argue that the Principle is indeterminate in these risk-risk tradeoff scenarios, in which regulators cannot simply choose the course of action that avoids all health or environmental costs. 83

Some precautionary thinkers have responded that risk-risk tradeoffs are rare-most regulatory decisions involve a tradeoff between economic costs and risks to health, safety, or the environment.8 4 Regardless of whether that claim is true in general, it is false for the emerging risks considered here. Fracking creates multiple environmental risks, but, by shifting energy production from coal to natural gas, it reduces the climate risks of carbon emissions.85 Ecigarettes might be a net positive for public health, if-and this is a big if-they help smokers quit and do not addict nonsmokers. Autonomous vehicles have the potential to cut traffic fatalities down to a fraction of current numbers.8 6 At least for these emerging risks, the argument that some versions of the Precautionary Principle are indeterminate in riskrisk situations cannot be dismissed.

Of course, the state could ban all new and potentially risky technologies, but this radical version drains some of the intuitive appeal of the Precautionary Principle."v What intuitive appeal it retains might be influenced by loss aversion.8 8 A society that faithfully implemented that kind of Precautionary Principle might be a society without antibiotics, air travel, or mobile phones.8 9 The pervasiveness of scientific uncertainty, especially with respect to emerging risks, can cut both ways. Foreclosing all innovation precludes the possibility of learning that some risks might be more innocuous than they initially appeared.