Praising Precaution

Praising Precaution

By John Taylor; 2006 October 03

"All praise be to God!" What does that mean? Does it imply that we should not praise things that are not God? Seven-year-old Thomas last night broke open a new checkers game and I let him win his first few games. He was proud and enthusiastic and when he woke first thing this morning before going to school he wanted to play more games with me and his mother. Was my lavish praise misplaced? Was I doing wrong? Or does this mean that whatever we praise, we are really praising the God part within? If so, my praise would have been of God, the divine part in Thomas that longs to solve problems and participate in divine "winter" virtues like honor (Sharaf), dominion (Mulk), and so forth? In that case all my praise would still be of God, the Majestic, the Winner, and so would his praise for the game of checkers.

Lately a nagging sense of situational desperation has pushed me, after a long layoff, to start back again starting every day off with an ardent recital of the Tablet of Ahmad. Then, acting as if my prayers had already been answered, I started again my search for a domain on which to lay the foundation of a home on the Net for these essays. I wondered hard and long about what domain name would be appropriate. Ideally it would be "badi'," Arabic for innovation, the name of the Bab's calendar and the focus of my first couple of years writing completely on the net, that is, between 1999 and 2001. I wanted to take badi.com but last I checked some female vocalist named Badi' had already taken it. Then it hit me that "instauration" would be ideal, since it means the "act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new." This is a very close rendering of the meaning of Badi,' though the Arabic seems to have religious overtones, recognizing that since all praise goes to God, all innovation ultimately originates in Him. What is more, one of my heroes from way back, Frances Bacon, called his masterwork, "The Great Instauration," which helped begin modern science. I would like nothing more than to follow in his footsteps.

Unfortunately it was a "good news -- bad news" situation when I Googled "instauration." The good news was that the domain name was not taken. The bad news was that it had been for decades the name of a now-defunct White Power magazine. Which meant that if I did take that name I might end up with a gang of racist skinheads, or as they call themselves, "racialists," on my doorstep demanding their name back. One racialist told an amusing (for me, anyway, no doubt tragic for them) story of how the publication snuffed itself out. Its main contributor was evidently a member of the Southern landed gentry. He was a skilled writer and wrote most of the articles for Instauration. But then another racialist wrote in and heaped blame on that class of greedy, slave-driving plantation owners for importing black slaves in the first place. They are the root cause of Roots, they started the American race situation in the first place. The writer took this personal-like and refused to support the magazine. So for me it is back to the drawing board.

I just finished reading "Introducing Science," by Ziauddin Sardar. It is one of the worst in the series, poorly illustrated and as a critic of science I wish that this historian of medieval Islamic science had brushed up on his modern science. He beats a thousand straw men to death but leaves the core of science untouched. It would have been better if he had called it what the book really is, "Introducing Science Studies;" Science Studies it seems is a new interdisciplinary discipline. I must say that although I am an avid science fan I had never heard of it. Such a change of title alone would have improved the book. But the parts that are good in it are very good indeed.

Here is what I learned. In the Fifties and Sixties science was mostly funded by government and the military. Since then its funding has radically shifted. Now the lion's share of the money for research comes from corporate sources. Before physics was the star, now biology is. Biology and genetics offer industry very bright prospects for patents and potentially huge future profits. This changes everything. Science has become greedier, more ruthless, and insatiable; all-in-all science has grown into a form of cancer without concern for anything but transient profit for a tiny minority of the human race.

But these changes are not all for the bad. There is a growing response to the crowding dangers that crop up in every edition of your morning newspaper. In 1992 the Climate Change Convention adopted the "precautionary principle," defined as "measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize adverse effects" of scientific progress "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage." At the heart of this is the increasingly hard to ignore uncertainty principle, the Socratic ignorance that started philosophy, what science studies students are now calling "ignorance squared." Ignorance squared is disconcerting fact that we not only do not know, we also do not know how much we do not know. We do not even know how much we do not know. In such darkness, who dares take a step forward? To that the corporate sponsors of science say, We do not know so why not go ahead and give it a try? Their opponents say, We do not know so why do anything new at all? What the new precautionary principle offers is a sort of "notwithstanding clause" to the uncertainty at the heart of science, progress and everything else we try or do not try. It says that "lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing ... (the above precautionary) measures." Sardar writes:

"The definition even suggests that precautionary measures should be `cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.' The European Union's science policy is now guided by the spirit of the precautionary principle. It is being used increasingly in policy making in which there is risk to the environment or to the health of humans, animals or plants. The onus is now on the manufacturer to prove that a product or process is safe." (Introducing Science, p. 162)

How telling it is, a century after the ascension of Baha'u'llah, that the precautionary principle should have been instituted as a way to direct and discipline scientific progress, for a very similar principle beats at the heart of the principles laid out in His Writings. Consider this, among the greatest of the Great Being statements:

"The Great Being saith: The heaven of statesmanship is made luminous and resplendent by the brightness of the light of these blessed words which hath dawned from the dayspring of the Will of God: It behoveth every ruler to weigh his own being every day in the balance of equity and justice and then to judge between men and counsel them to do that which would direct their steps unto the path of wisdom and understanding. This is the cornerstone of statesmanship and the essence thereof. ... The secrets of statesmanship and that of which the people are in need lie enfolded within these words." (Tablets, 166-167)

Those in positions of leadership are to do just what the European Union does, counsel experts and scientists to "direct their steps unto the path of wisdom and understanding." Wisdom is, at the very least, a kind of precautionary principle.

Not that the EEC is living up to the rules it declared for itself. In the news over the past few days is one of the worst cases of toxic waste dumping in modern history. Horrible caustic tar straight from a refractory in Holland was dumped into the poorest sector of the poorest city in the poorest country of Africa. Still, their old kings were directly addressed by Baha'u'llah, and it would be appropriate if they were among the first places to actually adopt wisdom rather than precipitate greed as their operating principle. All praise be to God, and to those beings weighed in His presence.