I'd call that at least fairly optimistic. We're working on technology, but it hasn't materialized yet. Even if it does materialize sooner rather than later, we

I'd call that at least fairly optimistic. We're working on technology, but it hasn't materialized yet. Even if it does materialize sooner rather than later, we have no particular guarantee the political will to utilize the technology will exist. I'm still confused about the bear. How is a human not existing a danger to others? A human not existing is really only dangerous to the human race once it reaches some critical mass that will essentially prevent any new humans from existing. I don't see how this is at all analogous to unleashing a bear in a populated street. Each instance is inherently not dangerous by itself. You can't say that for the bear. By that reasoning, why should we do anything to reduce green house gas production or any kind of pollution? We'll figure out how to remove it from the environment or make it otherwise non-harmful eventually. May as well go full steam ahead now in that case, right? I also highly contest the notion that preventing a human from coming into existence is anything like removing an existing one. If you were forced to chose between killing somebody or destroying a viable embryo scheduled for implantation, would you seriously have all that much trouble deciding?