I got to the end, though, and felt a little left hanging — based on your lead-in, I guess I was counting on some sort of conclusion, recommendation, thesis-statement, proposal, etc. (Or at least a more explicit one.)

Perhaps your strongest statement is “the awareness that things could all change suddenly [for the worse] is … rational”. (Ask the (former) denizens of Pompeii, Krakatoa, the 230,000 dead from the 2004 tsunami, the 1931 China floods (over 1mm), the 1970 Bangladesh cyclone (500k)…etc. — and those were purely non-anthropogenic events. I won’t even get into famine, disease, or war.)

I *think* you’re saying something like: “whether based on a ‘traditional’ religion or no — and whether it’s anthropogenic climate change or a bad Hollywood plot come to life: collectively, as humans, we have rational reason to worry about a Tunguska-scale event. Can we drop the religion-based differences — and agree that we should be proactive about such stuff?”