[jshen]

He says that as if he's certain it can't possibly, even a remote possibility, lead to societal collapse. First, there is no way he can be certain about that. Second, what is an acceptable probability for an existential threat? That's the real question to answer, and he didn't attempt to answer it.

[Retric]

societal collapse != humanities demise.

Climate change could do a lot of damage it’s just not extinction level damage. Even large scale nuclear war based on current stockpiles isn’t going to result in extinction.

[jshen]

We're splitting hairs, but that still leaves the question, "what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?

[ACCount37]

There is a non-zero possibility of Taylor Swift causing societal collapse.

That's not a reason to take such a scenario seriously.

[kennywinker]

Non-zero describes the chance of everything, sure. Infinite improbability drive and all that. But the chance of climate collapse causing social collapse is pretty much just a function of how bad we let it get measured in degrees C.

[jshen]

Your example is infinitesimally small, climate change is not. But you didn't answer the question either, what probability of societal collapse do you think is acceptable?

[senordevnyc]

You also didn't attempt to answer it. What probability of societal collapse (however you define it) do you find acceptable?

[grebc]

What existential threat to society do people/society really take seriously?

[johngossman]

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, I'd say people took nuclear war seriously. People had different opinions on how likely it was and whether it was an extinction event, but there was near unanimity that it was "a really bad idea." The obvious difference was that was impossible to doubt it was man-made and it wasn't something that slowly built up over decades--there was no way to say it was "normal"