see the fear-mongering associated with the startup of the new collider at CERN.
Was there really deceptive fear-mongering? That's news to me. Fear was overblown, but I don't think anyone was using it for anything other than what they thought was safety.
A slowdown in new science is the one thing I am certain will increase future risks
I highly doubt this. All plausible major x-risks appear to be man-made. Slowing down would give us more time to see them coming. Why would it undercut our ability to deal with a disaster?
Making science slow down means that you make the best and brightest not do their best in the research. So this drives them to optimizing algorithmical trading.
Also, you would want to slow down the research of new things and imncrease the research of implications; but how do you draw a line? Is the fact that a nuclear reactor can go critical and level a nearby city a useful cautionary knowledge about building power plant or a "stop giving them ideas" thing?
ETA: I do not mean that any of the currently running reactors is that bad — I mean how to research nuclear fission in years 1900-1925 to have a safe nuclear power plant before a nuclear bomb.
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
(I plan to make these threads from now on. Downvote if you disapprove. If I miss one, feel free to do it yourself.)