4 ms·

Please qualify 'serious accident' in the wake of 2 crashes and a decompression event forcing landing.

sixothree 3y ago
Those two accidents didn't "happen here" and our news is very isolated from the rest of the world. Maybe that's what he means?
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
My definition: Everyone on the plane has to die in a way that the plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they can put public pressure on a public figure powerful enough to force structural change This is the same idea as the cynical idea of “taking advantage of a crisis” What I’m not saying here is that this is what should happen or that this is how things should happen in a normative way. I’m simply describing that humans make progress almost exclusively in response to disaster rather than proactively preventing it.
- plussed_reader 3y ago
  So watching the FAA lurch to life after it delegated/abandoned its regulatory mission isn't a horrified response? Or is that business as usual in your estimation?
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I’m not really aware of any meaningful change happening so no, seems to be business as usual
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they can put public pressure on a public figure powerful enough to force structural change So basically only 9/11 or Perl Harbour would qualify.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Great Depression takes the cake here Pearl Harbor for sure Ozone Layer hole and the subsequent Montreal Protocol (banning of CFC) was notable in its speed and efficacy 9/11 is questionable - the response was bad and counter productive so I’d say no it doesn’t count
patmorgan23 3y ago
No one died or was seriously injured in the decompression event. But people die in car wrecks on the highway everyday
- plussed_reader 3y ago
  How does PTSD factor into your empathy radar? Is that not a serious injury and impediment to a life lived unabated?

Those two accidents didn't "happen here" and our news is very isolated from the rest of the world. Maybe that's what he means?

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

My definition: Everyone on the plane has to die in a way that the plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they can put public pressure on a public figure powerful enough to force structural change This is the same idea as the cynical idea of “taking advantage of a crisis” What I’m not saying here is that this is what should happen or that this is how things should happen in a normative way. I’m simply describing that humans make progress almost exclusively in response to disaster rather than proactively preventing it.

plussed_reader 3y ago
So watching the FAA lurch to life after it delegated/abandoned its regulatory mission isn't a horrified response? Or is that business as usual in your estimation?
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I’m not really aware of any meaningful change happening so no, seems to be business as usual
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> plurality of citizens are horrified enough that they can put public pressure on a public figure powerful enough to force structural change So basically only 9/11 or Perl Harbour would qualify.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Great Depression takes the cake here Pearl Harbor for sure Ozone Layer hole and the subsequent Montreal Protocol (banning of CFC) was notable in its speed and efficacy 9/11 is questionable - the response was bad and counter productive so I’d say no it doesn’t count

patmorgan23 3y ago

No one died or was seriously injured in the decompression event. But people die in car wrecks on the highway everyday

plussed_reader 3y ago
How does PTSD factor into your empathy radar? Is that not a serious injury and impediment to a life lived unabated?