> Now... there is a possibility of 'I was correct once... so I am also correct on other unlikely things that might happen' fallacy. As you don't know what else

> Now... there is a possibility of 'I was correct once... so I am also correct on other unlikely things that might happen' fallacy. As you don't know what else I am predicting that will happen, you can't call it a fallacy. These things WILL happen: serious epidemic (woops, ticked that!), highly destructive solar flare, catastrophic climate change, diseases caused antibiotic resistant bacteria, food production problems from widespread use of what are effectively plant clones (monocultures)[0]. Now tell me I'm wrong, that any these can't happen. They might take a while but when they hit they could be serious to extremely serious. Low risk but high consequences. > Not saying you are wrong on this case. OK > Just that you remind me of my dad... So you are saying I'm wrong or what? I think you're talking down things the same way as the other poster for the same reason. Well, I'm not your dad. I'm not here to show off being right. I'm trying to avoid catastrophic situations. The first step to doing that is identifying the problems (listed above, I will presume you agree with them?) then deal with them by actually... dealing with them. That's step 2, which the great majority of people won't take because it's uncomfortable. Easier to deny.