Whats interesting to me is how which fringe disaster scenarios people decide are extremely important and which they decide are ridiculous seems pretty closely t

Whats interesting to me is how which fringe disaster scenarios people decide are extremely important and which they decide are ridiculous seems pretty closely tied to their cultural circles. So, for instance, it's extremely unlikely than anyone here will get hurt by nuclear power, GMOs, mass surveillance, or artificial general intelligence anytime soon. We could take any one of those technologies and imagine extreme SciFi levels of future tech and incompetent or hostile governments, and then postulate the possibility of a large threat, based upon our imagination. At least in the online groups I frequent, it seems that the latter two are seen as self-evidently dangerous, not because of any particular harm they have done, but because of imagined future harm. The former two are considered ridiculous things to worry about, because it's considered silly to imagine future potential harm. Perhaps because the former seem tied to uncool hippy types, and the latter seems more tied to cutting edge tech types? I personally don't worry about any of these techs, since all of the danger I've seen appears greatly exaggerated. But it's curious to see how important trendiness is to fringe doomsday scenarios.