It's been a while since I quoted Stephen Den Beste so I thought I'd highlight a section from one of his recent blog entries about the Precautionary Principle.  In it, Den Beste slices & dices humanity into 2 categories that Ayn Rand would readily recognize.   When confronted with a new human initiative, folks have 2 reactions:

The cautious (or chickenshit) approach eschews any comparison of benefit against risk, and rather focuses exclusively on the consequences of the risks. It also ignores risks or consequences associated with inaction. I think it's more concerned with responsibility than with results, since some people think they're responsible for negative consequences resulting from their actions but not responsible for negative consequences of inaction. (Or it may be a deficit of imagination, an a priori assumption that there are no negative consequences associated with inaction.)

For the courageous side of the game, the consequences of inaction are definitely part of the risk/cost/benefit calculation. The focus is on results, not on responsibility. I think that the best summary of this point of view I've heard is, "The standard isn't perfection. The standard is the alternative."

A large part of his post provides proofs & anecdotes for why so many experienced folks (particularly of a technical bend) don't readily expect abstract perfection from anything.  Thomas Sowell's Quest for Cosmic Justice -- which I haven't read yet -- is a general expose about the unfortunate conseqeunces of the folks who expect Cosmic perfection across the board and combine it with political muscle.

Any guesses for how the cautious vs. courageous instinct distributes itself across nations?  It probably looks something like this.  This division lies at the heart of so many of the issues that divide us today - 

• Is an island of long term stability in the Middle East worth risking GI's lives? 
• How should NASA balance safety with pushing new frontiers?
• How do we balancy between the risk of unemployment and the benefits of a dynamic economy?
• How do we balance the rental price of today's housing stock with the supply and quality of tomorrow's?
• If a piece of technology can somehow facilitate child porn, does it immediately require regulation?
• Rolling back medicare WILL create at least 1 high profile instance of someone being "left behind" -- rolling it forward doesn't really create the same headline

MANY worthwhile causes (well, worthwhile in my book at least) suffer from the quality that costs & failure scenarios can be easily articulated and observed while the benefits, albeit profound, are nevertheless diffuse.  Even worse, the costs often need to be borne up front with the benefits only accruing later - giving our chickenshit-heads lots of material to carp about for a long period of time before the plan has had a chance to run its course.  

Many times, things will get WORSE before they better (for ex., rents going UP once rent control is repealed).  The short term costs of belligerance, for example, are always easier to tally than the short term costs of appeasement.  Today's flag-draped coffins are readily countable, while liberalization in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi middle class is harder to write a headline about and operates on a far longer time horizon. 

Meanwhile, our cautious press plays the responsibility game perfectly ("what did the president know and when did he know it?" ;  "who sold the trenchcoat mafia their guns?"  ;  Can we find a single memo scrap at drug company XYZ that warned about some risk from this drug? ; what govt program is letting our teenagers down? ). 

Why?  Well, in part because it makes for good drama - holding a person responsible rather than the emergent processes of scientific knowledge, economic organization, or technical advancement is a far more satisfying narrative.   And, of couse, it helps our little reporter feel like he/she is in the advocacy and thus political driver's seat.