3 ms·
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 figu
by 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 agoSo 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 agoI’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 agoGreat 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