> The pervasive "Let's never do anything, just to be safe" mood is what I dislike the most about this era. It is suffocating so many possible paths to progress.

> The pervasive "Let's never do anything, just to be safe" mood is what I dislike the most about this era. It is suffocating so many possible paths to progress. To evaluate such a claim with anything approaching objectivity we would need a lot more detail. What era are you speaking of? Why do you call it a ‘mood’? A mood of who exactly? The way you phrase it is not an accurate characterization of what people mean when it comes to concern about unintended consequences. Your phrasing is a narrow, uncharitable criticism. You might be attempting to reference to a concept called the precautionary principle? > The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous. - Wikipedia Criticisms are well articulated on the Wikipedia page. They are worth reading and discussing. They are fair and don’t rely on mischaracterizing what they criticize. To be clear, I’m not taking a position here on the precautionary principle. I am suggesting: don’t be vague and don’t mischaracterize others’ positions. Sorry if this sounds harsh; it seems to me that people on Hacker News have the intellectual horsepower and time to think and write well.