Taleb makes great points here. The only counterargument I am aware of is Nick Bostrom's "Vulnerable World" hypothesis[1]. Taleb assumes that negative outcomes m

Taleb makes great points here. The only counterargument I am aware of is Nick Bostrom's "Vulnerable World" hypothesis[1]. Taleb assumes that negative outcomes may simply be abandoned at zero cost, and therefore reducing research costs (options contract prices) is the sole necessary step for increasing optionality. The VWH claims that certain technological advances, once they're out of Pandora's box, are impossible to abandon or ignore. [1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12718 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.1...