Could those who helped flag this submission to death please add a comment about why they feel the article is inappropriate for discussion on HN? I thought it offered a good explanation for why a precautionary principle is appropriate for "nondiversifiable risks".
can't speak for the people who flagged it but for me personally - someone who made their living for many years denying climate change has now flipped to a new narrative of 'risk'. i just assume that he's shilling for the status quo in a new way i haven't got the energy to figure out - probably some sort of predatory delay or hawking a financial con.
