I agree with the gist of your post, but this paragraph:
Conversely, we know the LHC is not going to destroy the world, because nature has been banging particles together at much higher energy levels for billions of years...
is a common argument, that doesn’t really stand up once you take into account anthropic bias.
I don’t think anthropic arguments can be used here because you could equally argue that it’s more likely we’re living in a universe where the laws of physics are such that high energy particle collisions are rarely or never world-destroying than it is that we’re living in a universe where they are world-destroying, and we’ve just gotten lucky a whole bunch of times so far.
Also, we can observe that nothing world-destroying seems to happen on other planets that are also exposed to high-energy particles.
I agree with the gist of your post, but this paragraph:
is a common argument, that doesn’t really stand up once you take into account anthropic bias.
I don’t think anthropic arguments can be used here because you could equally argue that it’s more likely we’re living in a universe where the laws of physics are such that high energy particle collisions are rarely or never world-destroying than it is that we’re living in a universe where they are world-destroying, and we’ve just gotten lucky a whole bunch of times so far.
Also, we can observe that nothing world-destroying seems to happen on other planets that are also exposed to high-energy particles.