What if trying to stop a process--which we only have a 10% chance of stopping--would have a 100% chance of harming people? Is definitely harming people "playing it safe"?
Can you clarify what you mean by "harm"? I think it's a judgment call as to whether we should proceed with the method to stop the extinction. For example, if it means sterilizing all humans, I would say don't do it. If it means everybody has to be vegetarian, I would say do it. If it means economic harm, then it would depend on the extent and the available measures to mitigate it.
What I mean by harm is things like enacting economic policies which would do things like prevent the developing world from developing, resulting in people remaining in poverty. It's easy for healthy, happy, relatively wealthy people to say that we should cut emissions (cf. DiCaprio). But reality is that, if those people practiced what they preach, they'd be living in log cabins--without solar panels.
And I certainly take issue with your vegetarian example. What other people eat is none of your business. It sounds almost funny, but that would be food fascism--is there any other word for it? Do you really want some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk writing memos telling you what you are and are not allowed to eat? How can you think that's a good idea? The more governments try to control people, the more people are harmed. Doesn't history make this obvious? Why do people seem to think, "Yeah, but we can get it right This Time"?
Hypothetical question: an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth. You don't know for sure if it will hit, but you're pretty sure that if it does hit, it will be exceedingly bad. As the supreme authority on Earth, what resources are you willing to sacrifice to try and blow it up or divert it?
edit: Never mind, I read your answer up above. Well, anyway, a judgment call.
It sounds like a really interesting idea for a computer game: you're the president of the world, and an asteroid may or may not be going to hit the planet in so many years. Can you bring the planet's resources to bear in time to prevent it? Can you develop the technology and send the mission without bankrupting society and causing mass unrest? Can you delay that preparation and develop better technology to figure out if the asteroid will really hit?
Or do you play the villain, letting the asteroid hit, but building fallout shelters to survive with your friends while everyone else perishes? Can you do that without the populace catching on? Can you get it done in time? Can you outlast the "asteroid winter"?
Wow, that is a really cool idea! Usually I don't like political games but this seems like it could actually be fun and avoid preachiness, all while exploring the high level social planning issues.
