Thanks for the reply!

Viscerally for me, this immediately flags as not being right. I might not understand what you mean by that statement though. It's very difficult to make an impact on the probability of society-level hazards occuring, one way or the other, so if you think there's a non-trivial chance of one of them occuring a personal-level solution seems like the obvious choice.

What I am trying to say is that preparing personal defenses for society-level issues is very expensive per expected lifespan gained/dollar relative to preparing personal defenses for personal-level issues. Further, it is possible to actually remove the harm from many personal-level issues completely through personal precautions, while the same is not really likely for societal-level issues.

If you learn a better way of running and don't injure your knees, the knee injuries never happen. If you build a bomb shelter and are in your shelter when the nuclear war happens and the shelter holds up and you have sufficient supplies to wait out the radiation, society is still essentially destroyed, you just happened to live through it. Most, if not all, of the overall harm has not been mitigated.

I also think the difficulty of making an impact on the probability of society-level hazards occurring is overestimated by most, but that's a separate issue.

On the scale from pathological philanthropists to being indifferent to the whole world burning if it doesn't include you subjectively experiencing it I bet the average reader is a lot closer to the latter than you would like... I think a lot of people downvote when you make assumpions about them (that turn out to be incorrect).

I hope that you are wrong here, but it seems quite plausible that you are right.