I think a lot of people (including very smart people) are kind of hazy about what it means to be risk averse in the context of existential risk.

On one hand there are risks which could cause very sudden human extinction, things like large asteroid strikes, supervolcanoes, encountering an alien civilization, gamma ray bursts, or unfriendly AI. These are always conjectural because if they had actually happened, we wouldn't be around to worry about them. On the other hand there are risks with more direct evidence but which probably won't completely wipe out civilization, like climate change or a pandemic.

If you're risk averse about the human species, you will disproportionately focus on the first group, the things that could not only harm humanity but completely eliminate it. If you're risk seeking about the human species, you will focus on the second group, hoping to get lucky on the smaller risks of complete extinction.

However, if you're risk averse about spending your money on something that could be unnecessary, you disproportionately focus on the second group. This seems to be the higher status option, more immune to criticism.