[brutusborn]

Existential threat means things can’t get worse (you just stop existing).

Ignoring the potential of geoengineering implies you are sure that we have a better solution which will work. I hope we don’t have to use geoengineering but I am certain the status quo of hoping renewables and batteries in the 1st world will save us is not going to work.

[IlliOnato]

Threat is not certainty. If somebody is out there to kill you, you are under an existential threat, until they are caught. It's not a reason to start playing Russian roulette, saying "I'm already in danger, cannot get worse than that!"

[brutusborn]

The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?

I’m not saying this is a good way to think, just that it shows the fault in your logic.

[InSteady]

>The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?

You are conflating the cost of not extracting a fraction of a fraction of current production capacity with the risk ending human existence through changing systems we do not have anything close to a full understanding of nor precise control over.

Degrees of risk matter, in fact they are the whole point of GPs logic.

[brutusborn]

I’m not conflating them, I’m trying to elicit someone to _compare_ them so we can discuss reflexively rejecting certain solutions.

If you don’t have some measure of cost / benefits / risks, how can you reject a potential solution outright?

The answer is you can’t, so if you are doing so your reflex is based on emotion rather than reason.

[IlliOnato]

I was not commenting on any measures intended to stop/reverse the climate change. (I don't have enough knowledge to various probabilities).

I was just exposing a flaw in _your_ logic :-) You said:

> Existential threat means things can’t get worse

And I disagree, things can get a lot worse. You know, like replacing a threat with certainty...