What do you mean "how are you going to do that"? Are you seriously trying to assert that ex. the FDA has never successfully blocked a harmful drug from going to market? In another comment you yourself concluded that not adopting nuclear exacerbated the climate crisis, isn' this exactly what you're saying is impossible? Scientists and engineers make estimates about the large-scale impact of technological adoption all the time, and often they're very good at it (for example we're very clear about what the combustion engine is doing to our environment).

> Are you gonna have a committee of bureaucrats who never invented anything in their life come in and promise they will protect you from any possible downside?

This is such an absurd strawman that I almost didn't want to address it. Nobody is asking to live in the perfect nanny state, although if that's how you view everyone who disagrees with you no wonder you're into e/acc. It is both possible and extremely achievable for a government to collaborate with scientific experts to decide how and where to deploy different technologies. The fact that this process doesn't have a 100% hit-rate is emphatically not an argument for just abandoning the concept of industrial/technology regulation entirely. I personally enjoy not having industrial runoff in my groundwater or dangerous drugs available for sale in the pharmacy, and indeed believe that this type of prudence is a major contributor to the progress in human quality of life that you touted elsewhere.

edit: also how is this not it's own form of "doomerism"?? In one breath you make these wildly sweeping statements about human history and the unstoppable power of progress, and then here you state that it's basically impossible to ever make informed estimates about the consequences of our actions. It seems to me like you can only hold one of these two positions, consistently.