To me the key is whether someone can advance a plausible and falsifiable chain of cause.
Otherwise it feels a bit like an argument from anxious cynicism: "There must be a major danger or tragedy with everything including X, if we don't see it, that just means it's been good at hiding."
Otherwise it feels a bit like an argument from anxious cynicism: "There must be a major danger or tragedy with everything including X, if we don't see it, that just means it's been good at hiding."