craschworks

On Aug 28, 2005, at 11:50 PM, Hughes, James J. wrote:

>
> In the meantime we have that wonderfully successful, publicly funded,
> coercive program “water flouridation” which significantly responsible
> for the decline in dental caries.

Yes, and asbestos makes a great fire-retardant. And DDT kills
mosquitos very effectively.

Many risks don't manifest themselves until after long exposure. And
most new advances have both costs and benefits.

Now, so far, the consensus appears to be that long-term fluoride
exposure doesn't have great health risks. However, that forced
fluoridation appears to have been a net good does not mean that it
was a wise policy.

For example, what if some regulatory busybody back in the 20's had
specified the use of asbestos as insulation in fire codes? What if
it turns out that the anti-fluoridation activists are right, and
fluoridation causes say, decreased intelligence in children? (1) Or
Alzheimers? What if fluoridation has negative effects on only a
subset of the population, not covered by the studies done to date?

If you force everyone to use a new safety measure, then you force
everyone to endure the same risks. You've created a monoculture of
risk. And just as in crop monoculture, a single mistake in judgement
or an unforeseen cost can have devastating consequences for everyone
in the population.

If allowed to choose, on the other hand, some people will take the
risk, but others won't. If it turns out that some new advance has
unforeseen costs, then only those people who voluntarily chose to
take the risk will have to bear the costs.

Moreover, even if we have complete and accurate risk information, we
may still face trade offs. Is an 80% reduction in cavities worth a
1% decrease in IQ? Who has the greater incentive to preserve your
own health and wellbeing? To make the right risk trade-offs? You?
Or some nameless bureaucrat?

Individuals have a lot more information about their values and risk
preferences than regulators do. For example, I may be much more
tolerate of my kids getting cavities than of potentially reducing
their intelligence. If individuals get to decide for themselves
which risks to take, they are much better able to arrange a mix of
risks that suits their values and risk preferences than they could if
some bureaucrats (however well intentioned) decided for them.

As transhumanists, if given a choice, we're much more likely to
embrace new technology (or abandon old tech) before everyone else.
I, for one, would like to have that choice.

Chris

(1)

http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/