[extropy-chat] The Proactionary Principle: comments encouraged on almost-final version

[Hal Finney]

Chris Hibbert writes, responding to Max's document:

> > Freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even
> > critical, to humanity. This implies a range of responsibilities for
> > those considering whether and how to develop, deploy, or restrict new
> > technologies. Assess risks and opportunities using an objective,
> > open, and comprehensive, yet simple decision process based on science
> > rather than collective emotional reactions. Account for the costs of
> > restrictions and lost opportunities as fully as direct effects. Favor
> > measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of
> > impacts, and that have the highest payoff relative to their costs.
> > Give a high priority to people's freedom to learn, innovate, and
> > advance.
>
> Your opening paragraph starts out in a descriptive style, but 
> unexpectedly switches to imperative with the third sentence.  I think 
> the descriptive form was better suited as an introduction to the 
> numbered list that follows.  Let me try a rewrite to show you what I mean:

I noticed this as well, the transition is a bit awkward.  However I
prefer Max's punchy, imperative style.  It is concise and to the point.

A minimal change that would help would be to change the second period
to a colon.  This will ease the transition to the list of points.

Alternatively it might be worthwhile to have a paragraph break after the
second sentence (perhaps adding another sentence to the first paragraph
to fill it out more).  The sentences in the second paragraph could even
be turned into a bullet list, like this:

> Freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even
> critical, to humanity. This implies a range of responsibilities for
> those considering whether and how to develop, deploy, or restrict new
> technologies:
>
>  - Assess risks and opportunities using an objective, open, and
>    comprehensive, yet simple decision process based on science rather
>    than collective emotional reactions.
>  - Account for the costs of restrictions and lost opportunities as fully
>    as direct effects.
>  - Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude
>    of impacts, and that have the highest payoff relative to their costs.
>  - Give a high priority to people's freedom to learn, innovate, and
>    advance.

I agree with Chris that it is a little awkward to have a list of four
imperative points here, as an introduction to a list of ten points
(confusion exacerbated by the earlier claim that there will be seven
points!).  Still I thought his descriptive style was a little wordy.
Maybe the whole thing needs to be rethought a bit in terms of the number
of points being made in each section.

Hal Finney