[AndrewKemendo]

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]

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]

I’m not really aware of any meaningful change happening so no, seems to be business as usual

[ClumsyPilot]

> 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]

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