Ursula Franklin, in her recent radio interviews conducted in connection with the appearance of the revised edition of her book “The Real World of Technology”, said, among many other interesting and insightful observations, that planning should be aimed at minimizing disasters, rather than maximizing gains (or profits). For one thing, in any cost-benefit analysis, we should always ask “whose benefits” and “whose losses”, for these may not accrue to the same parties; they certainly do not in cases of exploitation. In any equitable version of the utilitarian principle “aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number”, the distribution” of happiness among individuals and groups in a society should be considered.

Focusing now on the principle that we should plan to minimize disasters rather than to maximize gains; it is not only an argument against capitalism and for conservation of nature (it certainly is that), it also resonates with other findings and principles in other realms of thought, and it is this which I want to stress in what follows.

In zero-sum strategy games, we search for “minimax”, or, from the perspective of the opposite player, a “maximin” outcome. This is a strategy to minimize losses: we seek an outcome where we stand to lose the least when our opponent chooses rationally for his own benefit. Thus selfish rationality already dictates an avoidance of disasters as the first priority.

In prospect theory (a modification of rational-choice theory to describe how humans actually behave), it is found by experiments that people consider it more important to avoid losses (keep what they already have) than to gain additional benefits, even if the expected utility (defined as utility times probability of its attainment) is the same, or even slightly less. From this originates the actual Scurve rather than the straight line, in actually observed behaviour.

Then there is the “precautionary principle” in applied ecology and technology (e.g. introduction of new drugs): in case of doubt that the innovation is safe, don’t do it, even if the benefits seem to be worth it.

Finally, consider Gandhian economics. It teaches that new technologies should not be introduced so quickly that they put people out of work. They can be introduced later, after adjustments have been made to safeguard full employment of all people who want to work. In other words, the guiding principle is benefitting people rather than increasing production efficiency. Since mass unemployment is a disaster, this is another example of planning primarily to minimize disasters.

Ursula Franklin herself used examples of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings and the Conserver Society Commission as cases of planning to minimize disasters. It seems evident that the principle has multiple applications. What use would it be if we reach out into space or learn how to genetically control ourselves, if we thereby imperil our own species survival?