6 ms·

People died and were maimed so Crush was fired, but then the company realized people enjoyed it and could still profit off these spectacles so they hired Crush

People died and were maimed so Crush was fired, but then the company realized people enjoyed it and could still profit off these spectacles so they hired Crush back. One engineer warned that they locamotives would explode and they shunned him as a debbie downer naysayer. Doesn't seem that far off from today where profits trump safety and any reason that stands in the way is ignored.

ubercow13 7y ago
Or you could say, it seems in stark contrast to today's health-and-safety-obsessed corporate culture
- psnosignaluk 7y ago
  I'd love to see the permit application form that would accompany this kind of thing today.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Rule 1: no live witnesses, cameras and sensors only.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  If you think we're safety obsessed, go drink well water next to a fracking well.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    Or work construction.
tapland 7y ago
I think that a move closer to the late 1800s has been an argument for increased government control that was common 10 or so years ago? But I haven't seen it argued the last few years.
jopsen 7y ago
> Doesn't seem that far off from today where profits trump safety and any reason that stands in the way is ignored. Really? :) While accidents do happen, the rate of accidents is going down. Injuries in general: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-number-of-deaths-by-cause?stackMode=relative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-number-of-deaths-by... Fire: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fire-deaths-by-age https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fire-deaths-by-age Drowning: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drowning-deaths-by-age-group https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drowning-deaths-by-age-gr... And even motor vehicle deaths, could plausibly have topped: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-by-type https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-by-type (this is world wide, in the developed world these peek many decades ago)
- girvo 7y ago
  One must only look at climate change for an example of what the parent commenter is talking about, I think.
- Wohlf 7y ago
  We live in the safest time ever, yet some people don't realize or refuse to believe it. I blame media bubbles.
  - salawat 7y ago
    No, we don't. We live in a local minimum based on what we're actually well equipped to define and measure, and what people in positions of power are willing to treat as actionable information. Politics is swinging to the extremes, violence is changing it's clothes, taking on other less familiar forms. Trust in the system is at a low. Economic inequality is rife; infrastructure and the environment is approaching levels of instability previously unheard of. These aren't media bubbles. These are failures to maintain or achieve higher order awareness. All of these things are feeding into each other in myriad ways; they can't be reasoned in individual contexts for solutions. That's the thinking that got us where we are. They need to be reasoned about as a whole. Problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them in the first place.
icebraining 7y ago
> the company realized people enjoyed it and could still profit off these spectacles No, it was a one-time stunt. Similar spectacles were made by other people, not by them. Using a single employee as a scapegoat, on the other hand, is quite modern - as is misguided outrage over "profit over people" based on fake facts, if I may say so.
novaleaf 7y ago
the USA is today is quite a bit far off from that time. Not because people are more empathetic, but because the legal system effectively penalizes reckless behavior like this. Try living in a country with lax consumer protection and liability laws, and you'll really come to appreciate life in the USA quickly. (I know I have)
Lendal 7y ago
Probably the engineer who told the guy the locomotives would explode was a young idealistic engineer fresh out of his Engineering Ethics 101 class. He had never been fired before for telling employers things they don't want to hear. This was his teaching moment. Hopefully his family didn't suffer long for his idealism.
- jandrese 7y ago
  At least they didn't have to suffer his funeral expenses. Steam explosions are no small matter.
landryraccoon 7y ago
I don’t buy it. Drive for profit should naturally increase safety, because safety is something people are willing to pay a premium for - both in aggregate and individually. The Saudis didn’t cancel their Boeing 737 max order because they valued safety over profits. They did it because unsafe flights are also unprofitable. In fact I’d argue we are even willing (collectively) pay massive amounts even for the false appearance of safety, i.e Homeland Security in the United States, even in the absence of concrete evidence that it actually makes us safer.
- deckard1 7y ago
  > Drive for profit should naturally increase safety If an executive can eke out a bonus from cutting corners, they will do so. It's long-term vs. short-term profit mindset. An executive may not care about the long-term profit of a company if they can make a quick dollar today and vanish tomorrow. > The Saudis didn’t cancel their Boeing 737 max order because they valued safety over profits. Yes, obviously people will stop flying on the 737 Max today. But that didn't stop the CEO of Boeing from forcing unsafe modifications on the 737 in a desperate gamble to compete with Airbus. The fact that we're discussing this today shows that your statement about "drive for profit naturally increases safety" to be false. The 737 Max wouldn't exist. Another example of this is VW and the emissions scandal. Customers, likewise, do not always do what is in their best interest. The 2008 mortgage crisis happened because customers were taking out loans they had no business taking out. And on the other end of the table, banks didn't care about risk because the risk was abstracted away from them. It was someone else's problem. Which ultimately became the government and taxpayer's problem. > In fact I’d argue we are even willing (collectively) pay massive amounts even for the false appearance of safety, i.e Homeland Security in the United States, even in the absence of concrete evidence that it actually makes us safer. Propaganda certainly works. Anti-vaxxers are a thing now. Which just proves that safety is a two-way street. Millions of people still smoke. The number of people texting and driving is so high that we have to have advertising on TV telling people constantly to stop it. Motorcyclists still refuse to wear helmets. If it weren't law, great numbers of people would still ride in cars without seat belts. And yes, they would buy cars without airbags if they were allowed to and it were cheaper than models with airbags.

ubercow13 7y ago

Or you could say, it seems in stark contrast to today's health-and-safety-obsessed corporate culture

psnosignaluk 7y ago
I'd love to see the permit application form that would accompany this kind of thing today.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Rule 1: no live witnesses, cameras and sensors only.
hanniabu 7y ago
If you think we're safety obsessed, go drink well water next to a fracking well.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  Or work construction.

tapland 7y ago

I think that a move closer to the late 1800s has been an argument for increased government control that was common 10 or so years ago? But I haven't seen it argued the last few years.

jopsen 7y ago

> Doesn't seem that far off from today where profits trump safety and any reason that stands in the way is ignored. Really? :) While accidents do happen, the rate of accidents is going down. Injuries in general: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-number-of-deaths-by-cause?stackMode=relative https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-number-of-deaths-by... Fire: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fire-deaths-by-age https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fire-deaths-by-age Drowning: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drowning-deaths-by-age-group https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/drowning-deaths-by-age-gr... And even motor vehicle deaths, could plausibly have topped: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-by-type https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/road-deaths-by-type (this is world wide, in the developed world these peek many decades ago)

girvo 7y ago
One must only look at climate change for an example of what the parent commenter is talking about, I think.
Wohlf 7y ago
We live in the safest time ever, yet some people don't realize or refuse to believe it. I blame media bubbles.
- salawat 7y ago
  No, we don't. We live in a local minimum based on what we're actually well equipped to define and measure, and what people in positions of power are willing to treat as actionable information. Politics is swinging to the extremes, violence is changing it's clothes, taking on other less familiar forms. Trust in the system is at a low. Economic inequality is rife; infrastructure and the environment is approaching levels of instability previously unheard of. These aren't media bubbles. These are failures to maintain or achieve higher order awareness. All of these things are feeding into each other in myriad ways; they can't be reasoned in individual contexts for solutions. That's the thinking that got us where we are. They need to be reasoned about as a whole. Problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them in the first place.

icebraining 7y ago

> the company realized people enjoyed it and could still profit off these spectacles No, it was a one-time stunt. Similar spectacles were made by other people, not by them. Using a single employee as a scapegoat, on the other hand, is quite modern - as is misguided outrage over "profit over people" based on fake facts, if I may say so.

novaleaf 7y ago

the USA is today is quite a bit far off from that time. Not because people are more empathetic, but because the legal system effectively penalizes reckless behavior like this. Try living in a country with lax consumer protection and liability laws, and you'll really come to appreciate life in the USA quickly. (I know I have)

Lendal 7y ago

Probably the engineer who told the guy the locomotives would explode was a young idealistic engineer fresh out of his Engineering Ethics 101 class. He had never been fired before for telling employers things they don't want to hear. This was his teaching moment. Hopefully his family didn't suffer long for his idealism.

jandrese 7y ago
At least they didn't have to suffer his funeral expenses. Steam explosions are no small matter.

landryraccoon 7y ago

I don’t buy it. Drive for profit should naturally increase safety, because safety is something people are willing to pay a premium for - both in aggregate and individually. The Saudis didn’t cancel their Boeing 737 max order because they valued safety over profits. They did it because unsafe flights are also unprofitable. In fact I’d argue we are even willing (collectively) pay massive amounts even for the false appearance of safety, i.e Homeland Security in the United States, even in the absence of concrete evidence that it actually makes us safer.

deckard1 7y ago
> Drive for profit should naturally increase safety If an executive can eke out a bonus from cutting corners, they will do so. It's long-term vs. short-term profit mindset. An executive may not care about the long-term profit of a company if they can make a quick dollar today and vanish tomorrow. > The Saudis didn’t cancel their Boeing 737 max order because they valued safety over profits. Yes, obviously people will stop flying on the 737 Max today. But that didn't stop the CEO of Boeing from forcing unsafe modifications on the 737 in a desperate gamble to compete with Airbus. The fact that we're discussing this today shows that your statement about "drive for profit naturally increases safety" to be false. The 737 Max wouldn't exist. Another example of this is VW and the emissions scandal. Customers, likewise, do not always do what is in their best interest. The 2008 mortgage crisis happened because customers were taking out loans they had no business taking out. And on the other end of the table, banks didn't care about risk because the risk was abstracted away from them. It was someone else's problem. Which ultimately became the government and taxpayer's problem. > In fact I’d argue we are even willing (collectively) pay massive amounts even for the false appearance of safety, i.e Homeland Security in the United States, even in the absence of concrete evidence that it actually makes us safer. Propaganda certainly works. Anti-vaxxers are a thing now. Which just proves that safety is a two-way street. Millions of people still smoke. The number of people texting and driving is so high that we have to have advertising on TV telling people constantly to stop it. Motorcyclists still refuse to wear helmets. If it weren't law, great numbers of people would still ride in cars without seat belts. And yes, they would buy cars without airbags if they were allowed to and it were cheaper than models with airbags.