Furthermore, implementing stricter regulations on CO2 emissions could decrease the probability of extreme ecoterrorism and/or apocalyptic terrorism, since environmental degradation is a “trigger” for both.
Disregarding any discussion of legitimate climate concerns, isn’t this a really bad decision? Isn’t it better to be unblackmailable, to disincentivize blackmail.
This discussion was about agential risks, the part I quoted was talking about extreme ecoterrorism as a result of environmental degradation. In other words, the main post was partially about stricter regulations on CO2 as a means of minimizing the risk of a potential doomsday scenario from an anti global warming group.
Disregarding any discussion of legitimate climate concerns, isn’t this a really bad decision? Isn’t it better to be unblackmailable, to disincentivize blackmail.
What do you mean? How is mitigating climate change related to blackmail?
This discussion was about agential risks, the part I quoted was talking about extreme ecoterrorism as a result of environmental degradation. In other words, the main post was partially about stricter regulations on CO2 as a means of minimizing the risk of a potential doomsday scenario from an anti global warming group.