Oleksiy Teselkin

Oleksiy Teselkin


The work argues that Nassim Taleb's precautionary principle should not apply to the domain of ‘GMOs’ any more than to other monopolizing economic domains, because the probability of systemic ruin stemming from the GM technology itself is dwarfed by other systemic risks of the Deductive-Optimization Economy of today.

The author proposes solutions of reinventing our imagination within specialized bodies of expertise by replacing the socially constructed fear to lose one’s face with a fear to miss out on an intellectual contribution. This may result in strengthening of public trust in the institutions and delay their demise.

Increased generation at the agricultural level (with the GM technology) absolutely must be accompanied by an even greater idea and dissent generation among professionals charged with developing and sustaining this complex system. Life starts with generation, not precaution; limiting the options is a path to extinction. We must limit the fear of loss instead. We will be less unsafe, insofar as it is possible to be safe from oneself, as long as the pace of idea generation within professional bodies outstrips the pace of complexity introduction into our life support systems, such as in agriculture. 

A philosophical version


In this work of foresight, I communicated my perception of Taleb's policy paper and the Black Swan problem discussed in it. To this effect, I:

  1. Re-conceptualized the concept of "foresight,” non-teleologically, and its “method”;
  2. Revived Empedocles’ non-teleological philosophy of evolution with modern scientific data;
  3. Located the real GMO safety problem in (you guessed it) teleology: in the suppression of dissent within institutions under a seeming assumption of knowing what waste is.

© 2018-2020 Researchers.One