The question of risk is always related to cost. It's common to use the 'insurance analogy' in these cases, or to invoke the 'precautionary principle'. The ins

The question of risk is always related to cost. It's common to use the 'insurance analogy' in these cases, or to invoke the 'precautionary principle'. The insurance analogy breaks down when you're paying 1/4 the cost of your house every 4 years to have it replaced in case of a possibility. We can't calculate the risk of an asteroid strike so we don't bother trying to avoid it or insure for it. Trying to solve an equation with one unknown variable is pointless, because there is only one correct value, and infinite incorrect values. Therefore the probability of wasting resources is extremely high. The precautionary principle is a recursive conundrum that eliminates itself and shouldn't be used in serious conversations. The facts point to a wait and see approach as the only rational response, given the availability of low cost approaches as in the original post here. This of course is not a popular response, but then most religions are based on the investment of time and money up front to deal with the unknown factor of what happens in the future. Unscrupulous people then use that fear to gather power and control over others. I'll always reject that thinking and use a wait and see approach.