[retsibsi]

They didn't say the things you're interpreting them as having said.

> why do you have the hubris to believe that you know we can only survive if we get lucky.

They didn't say we can only survive if we get lucky. The dichotomy they painted was between 'getting lucky' and civilizational regression, not extinction.

> again, hubris to think that the only possible outcome for humans is a disaster.

This is clearly not what they said: they said 'some technological or social innovation' might 'negate or stop the coming disaster'.

You can make an argument that we should lean more heavily on base rates rather than an inside-view attempt to predict the future. But here you've just psychoanalysed a strawman.