Yes you can. People take minuscule amounts of risk everyday, by driving or even walking. While I agree there's a point where the risk isn't worth it even if the expected value is positive (eg. russian roulette to win a billion dollars), but we're nowhere near that point with 737 Max risk.
And the door either has a goat or a car. But before the event takes place (opening the door), it is perfectly reasonable to do risk analysis with odds and fractional goats.
Chances of dying because you flew on a MAX are still insanely low. Maybe worse than if it was an A320, but the absolute numbers have so many zeros between the decimal point and the value that they're basically the same: 0.
Deep geological time isn't very relevant to human civilisations. The Fall Of Civilisations podcast has great long deep dives into what does threaten them, and the score is about 50:50 between climate change and Outside Context Problems.
Nuclear power stations have very slow demand response. That used to be done by gas peakers and hydro; in a decarbonised world that changes to battery peakers and hydro.
The carbon industry wants delay on decarbonisation. New nuclear projects are poster children for delay, because the industry has been mostly incompetent at shipping and lacks urgency.
It's a technology demonstrator, and one of the technologies it is demonstrating is "survive the night". Does the heating, panel and charge management all work as expected? Repeat! Then fly once the daily charge-state is understood.
