Comment by thomascountz

This is a fair distinction: extinction vs collapse of civilization. I was using "extinction" too broadly by including the disintegration of the systems that make human survival (as we know it today) possible.

That said, I can't completely hold onto the belief that extinction is completely off the table. That feels too much like hubris, and the step from collapse to extinction doesn't feel as if it costs much. Though it does make my arguments weaker, I am more interested in protecting civilization as it's the most recognizable form of humanity to me.

In either case, the cost-effective safety argument is compelling. Whether to save civilization or humanity, the wealth incentive is powerful enough to threaten life as we know it.