Draft submitted to Mind&Society, journal. Do not quote without permission. For any comment or question, write to: gloria.origgi@gmail.com
Should fear guide
our actions and governments’ political decisions? A leitmotiv of common sense is that emotions are tricky, they blur
our rational capacity of estimating utilities in order to plan action and thus
they should be banned from any account of our rational expectations. Yet, the
way in which our judgments are biased by emotional dispositions may sometimes
make us end up with better choices than pure rational choices. For example, a
huge literature has shown the universality of our risk-aversion and loss-aversion
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1974; Kahneman 2011). These universal features don’t
harm the evolution of human society. Rather, they explain the emergence of a
variety of different complex (and fit!) behaviors[1].
In this paper, I would like to challenge the prejudicial idea that fear of loss
should not guide our behavior at all and, especially, our collective behavior
when it takes the shape of a principle of general loss-aversion, as in the case
of the Precautionary Principle. In
particular, I will discuss Cass Sunstein’s rejection of this principle on the
basis of its incoherence by arguing that Sunstein’s criticism based on human
cognitive biases misses the target of the principle. I will then argue for an
ethical defense of the principle on the basis of a new vision of our moral
imperatives towards the future and a different, non evidential, concern for
potential catastrophic events.
What sort of principle?
The Precautionary Principle (PP in the following) is the more and more referred to in debates relating to environmental and health risks. It appeared for the first time in public debates around ecological issues in Germany in the Sixties and was rapidly adopted by ecologists especially in northern European countries. It began to be alluded to, at least implicitly, in international declarations such as the Stockholm declaration of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1972[2]. In 1982, The World Charter of Nature, sponsored by 34 “developing” countries was adopted by the United Nations. An open reference to the PP is made for the first time in this text at a global level. It is interesting to read through the text, because it shows very clearly the new philosophy of nature that underlies the endorsement of the principle. The charter was modeled on the UN declaration of Human Rights and structured in five principles and a series of recommendations. The preamble to the principles states that the General Assembly, aware that: “(a) Mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which ensure the supply of energy and nutrients, and (b) Civilization is rooted in nature, which has shaped human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific achievement, and living in harmony with nature gives man the best opportunities for the development of his creativity, and for rest and recreation” and convinced that: “(a) Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action, (b) Man can alter nature and exhaust natural resources by his action or its consequences and, therefore, must fully recognize the urgency of maintaining the stability and quality of nature and of conserving natural resources”, declares that: 1. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired.
In 1987, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer, made the first explicit reference to a “precautionary
approach” to the problem of the ozone layer. The PP took its first globally
accepted definition in 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit, on of the major United
Nations conferences on environmental issues, whose outcome was a Declaration on Environment and Development
structured around 27 principles. The 15th principle is the
following:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary
approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Further international developments of the PP can be found in
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement related to the United
Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change, which acknowledged
responsibilities of developed countries for the high levels of GHG emissions
and set an international agenda for monitoring and reducing emissions around
the world.
In
Europe, the PP has been integrated into the Lisbon Treaty, in the second
paragraph of the article 191:
Union
policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into
account the diversity of situations in the
various regions of the Union. It shall be based
on the precautionary principle and on the
principles that preventive action should be taken,
that environmental damage should as a priority be
rectified at source and that the polluter should
pay.
The
precautionary principle enables rapid response in the face of a possible danger
to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular,
where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse
to PP may, for example, be used
to
stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be
hazardous.
The
European philosophical roots of the principle
The
idea of the possibility of environmental risks at global scale related to the
awesome power of modern science and technology became a mainstream theme in the
European ecological thinking, especially in Germany, in the mid Seventies. The vorsogeprinzip[3]
became part of the conceptual tool kit of environmentalists in Germany,
especially around the issue of acid rain and clean air. It was also on line with
a general trend of modernization of the country that should match new
challenges like globalization, environmental management and the protection of global commons such as air, water, etc.
In 1970, a first draft of new clean air legislation in Germany made direct
reference to the idea of vorsoge.
Literally, the verb Vorbeugen is
commonly used in medicine and means “to bend beforehand” so that to reduce the
risk of being broken. The political atmosphere that encouraged the emergence of
the idea of a social responsibility in protecting the future of environmental
commons was the German social democratic administration aiming at including environmental
policies as part of the project of a fairer society[4].
The concept though bore a certain ambiguity among different interpretation and
aims. Many authors point to a number of possible lines along which the appeal
to the principle can be interpreted. It contains at least the ideas of: preventative anticipation; safeguarding
of ecological space; proportionality of response; duty of care; promoting the
cause of intrinsic natural rights; and paying for past ecological damage. All
these concepts are evoked and included in various formulations of the principle
and leave room for different applications and political uses of the principle.
However, in the late Seventies, the work of the German philosopher Hans Jonas
contributed to a clearer definition of the ethical reasons that underlie the
principle.
Jonas and the Prinzip Verantwortung
In 1979, Hans Jonas published a book Das Prinzip Veratnwortung, later translated into English under the
title: The Imperative of Responsibility.
His main idea is that the new alliance between global capitalism and technology
creates possibilities of action for human beings that require a wholly new
ethical reflection. Many of the worries that the previous formulations of the vorsogeprinzip raised in the political discussions and the many possible
interpretations of the principle were due to a lack of precise understanding of
the requirements of a new ethics for the future of mankind. Jonas’ contribution
may be considered the philosophical foundation of the PP. Without taking into
account the “ethical turn” that Jonas puts forward, many aspects of the PP as
well as its apparent incoherence - that Cass Sunstein stresses in his book[5]
- are very difficult to explain.
Jonas gave voice to a diffused idea that we have entered a new era in which the
intervention of humanity on nature can bring about not only irreversible harm,
like global catastrophes, but irreversible transformations of the metaphysics
of nature and humanity. What is at stake today is not only the destiny of
humanity, but the very conception of what “being human” is and means. We can do
things that make us being no longer humans,
we can act in such a way as to radically change the nature of nature. That is the novelty that sustain
the PP and the new responsibilities we have as actors that can modify in an
unprecedented way the deep ontological intuitions we have about being human.
Ethics has always dealt with human action
and responsibility in a fixed natural
context. Today, technologically-mediated human action can modify the
environment in such a way that we cannot consider nature anymore as a neutral environment that is the theater of our
actions. Nature is the target and the object of our actions whose causal
consequences are incomparable to what we have seen up to now. A new form of
responsibility that takes into account these potential irreversible
consequences has to be at the center ethics today. Traditionally, ethics, has
dealt with questions that concerned the immediate environment of action: “Treat
others as you would want them to treat you”, or “Subordinate your own good to
the common good”, whereas the causal consequences of human actions today make
them having a potential impact on the whole universe. Jonas then presents a new
categorical imperative, echoing
Kant’s anti-utilitarian ethics, in the following forms: “Act so that the effects
of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life”, or:
“Act so that the effects of your actions won’t destroy the future possibility
of such a genuine human life” or else: “Include in you own choice today the
future integrity of the humankind”. As for Kant’s categorical imperative, the
form of knowledge required in order to be able to recognize the truthfulness of
these principles is not of the same order of scientific knowledge. Ethical
competence, according to Kant[6]
doesn’t require any empirical knowledge and any special expertise. Anyone can
acquire a moral competence: “Because in moral concerns human reason can easily
be brought to a high degree of correctness and completeness, even in the
commonest understanding, while on the contrary in its theoretic but pure use it
is wholly dialectical”. In this sense, the new ethics put forward by Jonas
doesn’t depend on the acknowledgment of new scientific facts, but on a new order of responsibilities that humans must
endorse towards themselves and the survival of the natural world.
An aspect of this new ethics, according to
Jonas, is that of taking into consideration the future as and not only the
present as a moral dimension. When we consider future forecasting in order to
take decisions today, we must adopt the principles above and, for example,
prefer a less optimal outcome today if this means a better outcome for the
survival of future generations.
Many commitments are implied by this imperative.
First of all that we want to preserve
human life in its known form, and thus exclude any futurological idea of post-humanity. Second, that we have duties
toward the future generations that can be more compelling than the duties we
have towards our own present. Third, that we acknowledge duties also towards
non-human entities, such as water, air, etc. All these implications of the new
ethics of responsibility that underlies the PP can be discussed and challenged.
But, surprisingly, the angle of attack of the PP doesn’t privilege at all the
ethical discussion. Rather, it focuses on the “rationality” or the “compatibility
with science” of the principle, as it was obvious that an ethical principle
should be justified by empirical evidence.
In the following, I will discuss Cass Sunstein’s
attack to PP, together with other criticisms, and will try to argue that the
target to the criticism is inappropriate and it is based on a deep
misunderstanding of two main dimensions:
1. The ethical novelty of the principle
2. The statistical interpretation of the so-called
“ruin-problems” or catastrophes.
Sustein’s argument fails to take into account
both dimensions, by avoiding the discussion of the Kantian dimension of the PP
(that is in deep opposition with any utilitarian approach to ethics) and by
confusing the forecasting problem posed by the principle with classical
statistical problems (hence the reference to probability biases) instead of a
very special class of problems that have been defined in the recent literature
as “ruin-problems”[7].
Five so-called “biases”
of the PP
Cass Sunstein criticizes and rejects the PP, at
least it its strongest form of requiring regulation of activities even if it
cannot be shown that those activities are likely to produce significant harms
on the basis of different arguments, one of which raises the question of its
rationality. According to Sunstein, the PP is influenced by at least five
well-known psychological biases that
are very well studies in social psychology and behavioral economics:
1. Loss aversion: according to Prospect Theory[8]
people tend to be loss averse, that is, they consider more undesirable a loss
from the status quo than a potential gain. In the case of PP, it means that
people focus on the possible losses of a certain risky situation instead of
appreciate the potential advantages that are inevitably lost by the
introduction of the regulations.
2.
The myth of a
Benevolent Nature: in the perception of risks, people impute more
responsibility to human beings than to nature in potential harm. Nature is
perceived as passive, benevolent and harmonious, while human intervention is
seen as a cause of imbalance and loss of equilibrium. According to Sunstein,
defenders of PP endorse this vision of nature that is not evidence-based. He
brings about examples and case - like the one of man-made vs. natural made
chemicals[9]
- that show that human-made products may be far less toxic that nature-made
ones.
3.
The availability
heuristics: as largely shown in the psychological literature on heuristics and biases, people tend to be
influenced by the cognitive availability of a certain risk to judge its
probability. More familiar, salient or easily retrievable risks will be
considered more probable than less available ones.
4.
Probability neglect: another well confirmed
bias of the human mind is the tendency to miscalculate or underconsider
probability. In emotionally charged situations, people tend to overestimate the
probability of harm or of success. In the case of PP, it is clearly the
probability of harm that, according to Sunstein, is overestimated.
5.
System neglect: Sunstein reports a rich
psychological literature about the failure of most people to understand the
systemic effects of a certain policy, while focusing only on one or few
variables and being unable to see the causal cascade among the many parts
involved in a system. PP is victim also of this neglect, because it focuses on
risks in a part of the system without considering the overall trade-off of the
intervention within the whole system.
First of all, it is unclear in Sunstein’s
argument to understand who is the
target of his criticisms, that is, who is affected by all these psychological
biases. The policy makers who endorse the PP? Citizens who support it? Or the
PP itself? The rhetoric varies between these different interpretations.
Examples of these shifts of meaning can be found in the following statements: “Sometimes
the precautionary principle operates by incorporating the belief that nature is
essentially benign”[10], and: “People
will be closely attuned to the losses produced by any newly introduced risk, or
any aggravation of existing risks, but far less concerned with the benefits
that are foregone as a result of regulation”[11]
or elsewhere: “In fact many of those who endorse the principle seem to be
especially concerned about new technologies”[12].
Who is then the target of Sunstein’s criticism? Policy makers? The general
public opinion? The “operations” of the PP itself, as the PP was an acting
agent? I think that these ambiguities show a deep misunderstanding of the level
at which the results of social psychology behavioral economics should be
applied. Sunstein mentions a rich experimental literature, but no evidence at
all that the policy makers in Europe or around the world have been victims of
these biases and neglects. Decisions in policy-making settings are not taken in
the same form than decisions in everyday settings. People are asked to give
reasons for a political decision or a regulatory intervention, and usually
evidence-based decisions are highly appreciated. So, one could reasonably think
that decisions are taken by taking into consideration these biases. If it is
not the case, then, the burden of the proof rests on Professor Sunstein.
The second option is that the target of his
criticism is the people in general and the public opinion. If it is so, then,
another, different argument is needed in order to claim that what people think
and fear, if it is biased by rational standards, should not be considered as a
legitimate source of insight for policy making. We are not talking here of cases
of massive irrationality or paranoid contagion, whose spreading should be
avoided. We are talking here of universal psychological biases that no evidence
can correct and that - given that they belong to human natural cognitive asset
- have not prevented humanity to develop and survive. Prospect Theory, that is
mentioned by Sunstein, is not a “bias”: it is, according to its inventors, a normative theory about human behavior;
more precisely, an alternative to the homo
oeconomicus, that even economists should consider in order to come out with
better predictions and more accurate descriptions of human action.
More broadly, the question of the minimum
standards of rationality that should be imposed to the citizens in order to
participate in public life is an ancient debate that divides those who think
that democracy should be based of political egalitarianism and opponents to
this idea[13].
There is a tension in liberal democracies between political equality (one
person, one vote) and political quality (not all points of view have the same
weight to take wise decisions). One of the major problems of mature democracies
is that of bridging the gap between competence and political participation. To
what extent citizens must be competent? To what extent their judgments and
opinions should be considered all equal? Sunstein’s invocation of cognitive
biases goes with the standard complaints about democracy today that people are
too ignorant, too uninformed to express a wise opinion, therefore their
judgment can be manipulated and the overall objective value of the expression
of their opinions be harmed. But is it so? Is this a justified complaint?
Should the judgment of the many imply a certain level of rationality or
probabilistic expertise in order to be taken into consideration? Should we get
rid of “emotionally charged” expressions of preferences, affections, fears and
commitment to deep values (like for example that of “respecting the
environment” or “not eating animals”) when we assess the “rationality” of the public
opinion? What sort of democracy is that envisaged by Sunstein, where our everyday
understanding of our relationship with our environment and our future should be
mediated by the readings of the fanciest results in behavioral economics? A
true liberal democratic regulatory policy should be able to take into account
values and different points of views, even about probability, without being so
self assured about its epistemic superiority. Does it make any sense to ask
whether Gandhi was right or wrong about his philosophy of nature given the
import of his political action and the consequent democratic improvement for
the whole world of India’s liberation? Could the alleged superiority of
Cambridge-based techno-science in the last century over Gandhi pre-modern
philosophy of nature[14] have been
invoked to justify a change in policy making in India? If Sunstein’s five
biases apply to citizens’ beliefs, then the burden of the proof that a better
democratic action needs unbiased psychological subjects rests again on
Professor Sunstein.
As for the third option, that is, that the PP is
in itself biased, it is hard to figure out what exactly means that an ethical
principle is biased and how psychological biases apply to international
declarations.
Risk management vs.
dealing with Black Swans
Precaution is different from prevention because
it deals with potential risks instead of known risks. Yet, the notion of
“potential risk” is quite obscure. Does it mean that the probability of the
occurrence of these risks is unknown? Or does it mean that the impact of these
risks is difficult, or even impossible, to anticipate? Here lies all the
ambiguity of the PP, and, indeed, its difficult application as a risk
management tool. Clearly, when risks are known, probabilistic risk management
is sufficient to deal with potential harmful technological innovations. Take
the case of the use of nuclear energy and the installation of new nuclear power
plants. It raises strong emotional reactions among many people. But, as
Bar-Yam, Read and Taleb (2014) say: “because of the known statistical structure
of most of its problems and the absence of systemic consequences at small
enough scales, at such scales the problem is better left to risk management
than to PP”[15].
For a coherent application of the PP, it is essential thus, to distinguish it
from a tool for risk prevention. The PP doesn’t deal with rare or unlikely
events, it doesn’t rest on our cognitive failures in assessing probability
distributions, nor it is a declaration of public paranoia. The PP deals with a
very specific classes of events that are just not predictable, but thinkable, that is ruin-problems, or catastrophes.
Catastrophes are notoriously black swans,
to use the expression introduced to the large audience by the statistician and
trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb[16].
A black swan is a highly improbable,
hard to predict, rare event that has an enormous, disruptive impact on a
system. Such extreme events are outliers, that is, they don’t lie on a Gaussian
curve: their distribution is not normal. We can’t calculate the odds of a black
swan, we cannot just predict it. Its probabilities, according to Taleb, are invariant to scale hence do not
drop fast enough for the consequences to have a weak expected impact. Complex systems such
as the techno-capitalist systems that drive our societies have scalable distributions
of events. In these complex systems, rare, extreme “winner-take-all the effects”
event are likely to be found. The probability distribution that contains a
black swan has a fat tail, that is, the
sum of the probabilities of all events will be dominated by a single one whose
impact is incomparable with all the other ones. The penetration of technology
within natural systems makes nature and biosphere part of these modern complex
systems.
The PP deals with these kinds of events that, in
such complex systems are likely to occur: ruin-events that, if they occur, are
no-return events. I can survive ten times to attempts to poison me, but this
doesn’t say anything about the probability that I will survive to the eleventh
attempt to poison me. Rather, I may have become more fragile because of the
exposure of the previous attempts. The risk of an environmental catastrophe is
neither sustainable nor predictable. We have to live with and try to become
more responsible and more robust to its possible occurrence. For example,
diversity and redundancy are strategies that made of the evolved natural world
a very robust system. Exercising the PP against the reduction of diversity and
redundancy, for example of agricultural crops, may be a wise way of making us
more robust to a possible radical systemic change induced by the continuous
introduction of GMO in agriculture.
The PP thus cannot be neither criticized nor
interpreted through the lens of a consequentialist ethics based on an estimate
of the trade-offs of different probability distributions. And I agree with Sunstein
about the ambiguity of some formulations of the PP that introduce this
trade-off dimension. For example, the formulation in the Maastricht Treaty was
the following: “The absence of certainties, given the current state of
scientific and technological knowledge, must not delay the adoption of
effective and proportionate preventive measures aimed at forestalling a risk of
grave and irreversible damage to the environment at an economic acceptable cost”.
But of course, this formulation in incoherent, because, if the risk is a major
catastrophe, there is no trade-off with the “acceptable costs” to avoid it.
Effectiveness, commensurability and “reasonable costs” are not the vocabulary
of the unknown.
Conclusions
The PP introduces an ethical, normative
principle for dealing with an uncertain future, where, given the complexity and
interconnectedness of the natural and social systems in which we live,
catastrophic black swans are more likely to occur. It introduces a
future-oriented ethics by stating that the future of humankind should be part
of our concerns in each choice. It introduces a bias towards the negative
outcomes, that is, given the non-sustainability of a catastrophic outcome,
being aware that it may happen, makes
a lot of sense. It doesn’t help us in forecasting catastrophic events, but, by
teaching us to fear them and to incorporate their possibility in our everyday
thinking about our actions, it guides us to become more robust to them.
Indeed, we should not fear fear too much. Sometimes
fear can make us stronger and wiser.
[1] Cf. Brennan, T. and Lo, A., 2011, “The
Origin of Behavior”, Quarterly Journal of Finance 1: 55–108.
[2] Cf. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503
[3] Cf. S. Bohemer-Christiansen: “The Precautionary Principle in
Germany” T. O’Riordan and J. Cameron (1994) Interpreting
the Precautionary Principle, EarthScan Publishing.
[4] Cf. ibidem, p. 35.
[5] Cf. C Sunstein (2005) Laws of
Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge University Press.
[6] Cf. I. Kant, 1785 Fundamental
Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated into English by Thomas
Kingsmill Abbott.
[7] Cf. Y. Bar-Yam, R. Read, N. N. Taleb (2014): “The Precautionary
Principle”; J. P. Dupuy “The Precautionary Principle and Enlightened
Doomsaying: Rational Choice before
the Apocalypse.” Occasion: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities
1, no. 1 (October 15, 2009), http://occasion.stanford.edu/node/28.
[8] Cf. D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (1979) “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of
Decision under Risk” Econometrica, 2,
vol. 47, pp. 263-292; D. Kahneman (2011) Thinking,
fast and slow, Allen Lane, New York.
[9] Actually, he mentions cases discussed in Paul Slovic’s work on risk
perception. Cf. P. Slovic (1987) “Perception of Risk”, Science, 236, 4799, pp. 280-285.
[10] Cf. Sunstein (2003) on line at: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=307098
, p.29.
[11] Cf. ibidem, p. 27.
[12] Cf. ibidem, p. 29.
[13] Cf. J. Stuart Mill (1861) On
Representative Government; J. Dewey (1916) Democracy and Education, MacMillan, New York. For a recent
discussion of the tension in liberal democracies between political quality and
political equality, see D. Estlund (2009) Democratic
Authority, Princeton University Press.
[14] For a recent account of Gandhi’s philosophy of nature, see A.
Bilgrami (2014) Secularism, Identity and
Enchantment, Harvard University Press.
[15] Cf. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674052048
[16] Cf. N.N. Taleb (2007) The
Black Swan, Random House.
30 comments:
Typo right after the section 'Five so-called “biases” of the PP':
Cass Sunstein criticizes and rejects the PP, at least it its strongest form...
Should be in not it.
Also, two paragraphs up before the numbered list:
... I will discuss Cass Sunstein’s attack to PP, together with other criticisms, and will try to argue that the target to the criticism is inappropriate...
'attack to PP' and 'target to the criticism' seem like they should be 'attack of PP' and 'target of the criticism'
Nice post. I like it. This is useful for me. I have more knowledge about it at:
http://twistwriter.com/what-are-the-divisions-definitions-of-biology
A great part the information above may be used as thesis help from this resource to enlighten or develop some literary or educational theme. It seems like they hire only the best custom writers from all over the world in order to keep students safe from plagiarism and stress at college and personal life.
Hello Everybody,
My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.
BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS
1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
2. Telephone Numbers:……….
3. Address and Location:…….
4. Amount in request………..
5. Repayment Period:………..
6. Purpose Of Loan………….
7. country…………………
8. phone…………………..
9. occupation………………
10.age/sex…………………
11.Monthly Income…………..
12.Email……………..
Regards.
Managements
Email Kindly Contact: urgentloan22@gmail.com
thank you for your sharing this topic !
goldenslot casino
บาคาร่าออนไลน์
gclub casino
Thanks for all your efforts that you have put in this.
จีคลับ
goldenslot
gclub online casino
العديد من طرق اشهار المواقع الالكترونية الان من خلال شركة سوقنى تحصل على افضل الخدمات باقل الاسعار فقط عند تواصلك معنا عبر زيارة موقعنا الالكترونى لتتعرف على المزيد من الخدمات مثل مسك كلمات تكون هى الاقوى فى عمليات البحث لربطها بمحركات البحث
العديد من التصميمات الاوربية المتميزة الان من شركة قرميد بالمملكة تعرف على الكثير من الخدمات فى بيع وتركيب وبناء قرميد اسبانى تواصل معنا الان لتتعرف على المزيد
تواصل الان مع اكبر شركة حراسات امنية لتتعرف على العديد من الخدمات المقدمة فى امن وحراسة المدارس والمنشات الحيوية الكبرى مع اضخم اسطول عمل من افراد حراسات خاصة زور موقعنا الان لتتعرف على العروض
خصومات الان من شركة تنظيف خزانات بمكة الان وعلى اعلى مستوى ممكن الان يمكنكم الحصول على افضل تنظيف خزانات بمكة الان وصيانة عالية لكافة الخزانات الان وباقل الاسعار الممكن التى تقدمة الشركة
نقدم الان افضل انواع قراميد اسباني الان وباقل الاسعار الممكن التى تقدمة الشركة الان وباقل الاسعار المختلفة والرائعة من قرميد التى لا احد يقدمة الان فى السعودية
خصومات الان على اعلى المميزات من صيانة كاريير الان فى مصر التى تقدم العديد من المميزات من توكيل كاريير الان ,وباقل الاسعار الممكن
الان يمكنكم الحصول على افضل شركة حراسات خاصة الان على افضل المميزات المختلفة التى لا احد يقوم بتقديمة الان من امن وحراسة الان على اعلى مستوى ممكن , وباقل الاسعار المختلفة
افضل شركة تنظيف فلل بالمملكة العربية السعودية
لدينا فريق عمل خاص لتنظيف وترتيب الفلل
كما نقوم بتنظيف السجاد والموكيت والستائر والفرش
وننظف وجهات الحجر والزجاج
شركة الصفرات لتنظيف الفلل بالرياض
كما نقوم بتنظيف الاسقف والحوائط والارضيات
وغرف النوم نقوم بترتيبها وتنظيفها
والمطابخ والحمامات
وحمامات السباحه
والحدائق
يسعي العديد من العملاء والباحثين للتعامل مع موقع مكتبتك الحصول علي التقنيات العالية في الجودة منها توفير دراسات اجنبية مترجمة علي ايدي خبراء من الباحثين
يحتاج الكثير من الباحثين الي التعامل مع موقع مكتبتك المتطور في مختلف الخدمات منها الترجمة الي تتم علي ايدي متخصصين في مختلف التخصصات العلمية
يعتبر موقع مكتبتك من أهم المواقع التي تقدم الخدمات التي يحتاجها الباحث العلمي والتي تتمثل في دراسات اجنبية مترجمة بجانب توفير عدد كبير من المراجع حول ادوات الدراسة في البحث العلمي لتوضيح كيفية استخدامها
Am visit of many blog but not get valuable information, but after seen your blog provide it me a lot of valuable and useful information I really like to thank you so much for share this information with us, if are inserted in grow up your life style and also grow up your looking so please come on my website am put it on many information so and visit again time thank you so much for read my comment I hope your also like my comment and you also go on my web page.
Lifestyle Magazine
Great post! We adore this blog and This information is very good.
Men Bespoke Tailoring
Thanks for the best blog.it was very useful for me.
We have the best hospitals and surgeons to provide Infertility Treatment In
India. At Indo American Health, we provide the best assistance to international patients. To experience our services, call us now.
Since Sunstein has been employed in shaping methods of policy decision-making at the W.H.O. too, while "conspiracy theories" (voiced suspicion of govt official wrongdoing) are now being characterized as "domestic terrorism," this analysis of Sunstein's prejudices and huge blind spots in his thinking is even more important. Thank you for this. I hope you'll write more about it.
تتميز شركه سما الصقر بأنها الاولي في مجال تسليك المجاري والصرف الصحي والمطابخ والحمامات والنظام الامريكي
شركة تسليك المجاري بالرياض
شركة تسليك مجاري
شركة ترميم منازل بالرياض
خدمات تسليك مجاري بالرياض
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض
شركه كشف تسربات المياة بدون تكسير
افضل شركة ترميم بالرياض
شركة ترميم
شركة ترميم فلل بالرياض
I was diagnosed as HEPATITIS B carrier in 2013 with fibrosis of the
liver already present. I started on antiviral medications which
reduced the viral load initially. After a couple of years the virus
became resistant. I started on HEPATITIS B Herbal treatment from
ULTIMATE LIFE CLINIC (www.ultimatelifeclinic.com) in March, 2020. Their
treatment totally reversed the virus. I did another blood test after
the 6 months long treatment and tested negative to the virus. Amazing
treatment! This treatment is a breakthrough for all HBV carriers.
Pahuja RO Water Solution is an independent Ro Service Centre in Gurgaon, Delhi NCR and All Over India. We undertake job work of Service, AMC, Repair, Installation & Maintenance.
Pahuja Aqua Service Brief Introduction
Pahuja Aqua Service Brief Introduction
A Water Softener is an Advanced Version of the Water Purification System
RO Service Near Me ✅ RO Service in Gurgaon 249/- Only. Call RO Service Centre Number for water purifier service, installation. We cater Kent, Aquaguard, Aquafresh, Livpure, Pureit, Nasaka in Gurgaon & Delhi NCR.
Get your “Water Purifier” Filters Clean Before Monsoon Causes Mould Formation
Water Purification System: Drink Healthy Live Healthy
Drinking Water Keeps You Healthy! Drink Water Daily
Five Signs you would like To Book Water Purifier Services
Five Signs you would like To Book Water Purifier Services
Kent Ro Customer Care Number & Book Request At Kent Ro Service Center Near Me & Resolved Kent Water Purifier Repair, Amc, & Installation Issues In Gurgaon Delhi NCR
RO Customer Care | Kent RO Service Near Me | Kent RO Service Center Near Me
Kent RO Service Center in Delhi | Kent Service Center Near Me in Delhi
Kent RO Service Center in Gurgaon | Kent Service Center Near Me in Gurgaon
Kent RO Customer Care Number Gurgaon
Kent RO Customer Care In Delhi | Kent RO Service Delhi
Water frameworks overall are being undermined by the enormous number of pollutants that represent a wide scope of threats to families. Since you realize that we need water in each reason, like washing, washing, cooking, and drinking, the foreign substances can without much of a stretch influence your wellbeing. These days, the poisons are developing more than ever.
RO Service Near Me ✅ RO Service in Gurgaon 249/- Only. Call RO Service Centre Number for water purifier service, installation. We cater Kent, Aquaguard, Aquafresh, Livpure, Pureit, Nasaka in Gurgaon & Delhi NCR.
Pahuja RO Water Solution is an independent Ro Service Centre in Gurgaon, Delhi NCR and All Over India. We undertake job work of Service, AMC, Repair, Installation & Maintenance.
Your Choice Of Protector: Various Water Purification Technology
Wide Range of Water Purifiers is Available at Our Store if You Want to Shop Online
Do you think it’s safe to give your family unfiltered water?
Water That is Safe and Clean to Drink-RO Filter Service
Factor You Must Consider Before You Buy Water Purifier For Your Home
Kisan Samman Nidhi List 2022: PM Kisan Yojana, PM Kisan Status
We made its reputation in years with delivering quality RO service centre near me in Jammu and all over India, India and nearby cities with RO service Centre near me. We also provide Water purifier service for all leading brands you can check here for Kent RO service in Jammu and Aquaguard service in Jammu nearby is giving many buying options like on an installation basis, exciting exchange offers, and world-class after-sales service.
demo pg slot ทดลองเล่นเกมสล็อตออนไลน์ฟรี กับ พีจีสล็อต เว็บสล็อตอันดับ 1 ที่ผู้เล่นมากมายจากทั่วโลกให้การยอมรับ ว่าเป็นเว็บที่ดีที่สุดตลอดมา มาพร้อมโปรโมชั่นมากมายที่ขนมาให้
Post a Comment