. I guess this is because the ethics seem obvious to me: of course we should prevent people from developing a "supervirus" or whatever, just as we try to prevent people from developing nuclear arms or chemical weapons.

Of course the ethics are obvious. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. 200 years ago burning all those fossil fuels to power steam engines sounded like a really great idea.

If you simply try to solve problems created by people adopting technology by throwing more technology at it, that's dangerous.

The wise way is to understand the problem you are facing and do specific intervention that you believe to help. CFAR style rationality training might sound less impressive then changing around peoples neurology but it might be an approach with a lot less ugly side effects.

CFAR style rationality training might seem less technological to you. That's actually a good thing because it makes it easier to understand the effects.

The fact that solar itself is getting less expensive is great, but unfortunately the changing over from fossil fuels to solar (e.g. phasing out old power plants and building brand new ones) is still incredibly expensive.

It depends on what issue you want to address. Given how things are going technology involves in a way where I don't think we have to fear that we will have no energy when coal runs out. There plenty of coal around and green energy evolves fast enough for that task.

On the other hand we don't want to turn that coal. I want to eat tuna that's not full of mercury and there already a recommendation from the European Food Safety Authority against eating tuna every day because there so much mercury in it. I want less people getting killed via fossil fuel emissions. I also want to have less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

is still incredibly expensive.

If you want to do policy that pays off in 50 years looking at how things are at the moment narrows your field of vision too much.

If solar continues it's price development and is 1/8 as cheap in 21 years you won't need government subsidies to get people to prefer solar over coal. With another 30 years of deployment we might not burn any coal in 50 years.

disheartening roadblocks in the way (utility companies, lack of government will, etc.).

If you think lack of government will or utility companies are the core problem, why focus on changing human neurology? Addressing politics directly is more straightforward.

When it comes to solar power it might also be that nobody will use any solar panels in 50 years because Craig Venter's algae are just a better energy source. Betting to much on single cards is never good.