I agree somewhat that the article seems more structured around “managing risk is important”, rather than talking about concrete actions. But the idea of paying

I agree somewhat that the article seems more structured around “managing risk is important”, rather than talking about concrete actions. But the idea of paying people more to work on issues to mitigate risk is very valid. Lots of people are working on climate change, it’s true, but it’s not hard to imagine a world where we subsidize that sort of work (assuming a reasonable qualification process), and the result is more people working on the solution. To put another way - if fewer people were working on it, would it take less, more, or the same amount of time? Presumably there is some optimal range where enough smart people are working on a problem to speed things up, but not enough to where there’s a lot of wasted make-work. To the last point, there are always going to be risks that we, individually or collectively, can’t do anything about- nuclear war over Taiwan being one of those. Our inability to influence those risks does not obviate the opportunity to mitigate others.