This is an interesting point, but I think it is also worth acknowledging a few things: 1) research community seems to be predominantly very technical, and might lack the ability to see the bigger picture that comes with the ability to move between domains (history, psychology, philosophy, evolution and emergence, supply chains, geopolitics, risk, game theory, etc) 2) importantly, research community is generally young, median is probably below 30, likely below 27 according to some surveys - this means that no matter how smart, their frameworks are likely predominantly formed by academic education and theory, not practical experience, or observations that come from practice 3) researchers are generally very well paid, frontier lab researchers in particular, and they are geographically concentrated - it is very easy to end up in an echo chamber of lifestyle / income aligned peer professionals 4) the field is likely to select for people who generally lean worried All this tells us nothing about the arguments. It tells us that we should test their arguments against other perspectives, and favor researchers that speak with balance and humility