![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was stuck in traffic going to an evening event, and while flipping between channels on the radio I heard somebody arguing about how we could deregulate an industry because "it's not like people decide to go out and crash a plane." (I don't think he was talking specifically about the airline industry, I think that was just an example.)
He's right - nobody goes out and plans to crash an airliner, and Thomas Andrews, designer of the Titanic, did not deliberately design the ship to sink or skimp on lifeboats. Rather, Andrews made an optimistic assessment of the risk involved. This assessment proved wrong - fatally so for Andrews, as he went down with the ship.
Andrews' assessment of the risk was driven in part by cost. Lifeboats weren't cheap, watertight hatches (to prevent overtopping the watertight bulkheads) were cumbersome and unsightly, and in general the shipyard would rather spend the money on wood trim in the first-class cabins. So they did, not thinking that they had done anything especially dangerous.
The problem was, there was no "Doctor No." There was nobody in the design stage to say, "no, put the hatches in, I don't care how ugly they look." There was nobody in the operational stage to say, "we're not barreling through an ice field at top speed."
Now, it's possible to self-regulate, to have a Doctor No on the payroll. The problem is nobody likes Doctor No. He costs money, and if he's doing his job, there are no accidents, so it looks like the money is just being wasted. So the pressure is always on to get rid of Doctor No, or at least muzzle him.
But if an outside force requires a Doctor No, then it's harder to get rid of him. This outside force is usually government. Now, don't get me wrong - even with regulation and outside oversight, things can go badly wrong. Any system designed and implemented by humans is inherently imperfect. However, getting rid of Doctor No increases the likelihood of things going south.
He's right - nobody goes out and plans to crash an airliner, and Thomas Andrews, designer of the Titanic, did not deliberately design the ship to sink or skimp on lifeboats. Rather, Andrews made an optimistic assessment of the risk involved. This assessment proved wrong - fatally so for Andrews, as he went down with the ship.
Andrews' assessment of the risk was driven in part by cost. Lifeboats weren't cheap, watertight hatches (to prevent overtopping the watertight bulkheads) were cumbersome and unsightly, and in general the shipyard would rather spend the money on wood trim in the first-class cabins. So they did, not thinking that they had done anything especially dangerous.
The problem was, there was no "Doctor No." There was nobody in the design stage to say, "no, put the hatches in, I don't care how ugly they look." There was nobody in the operational stage to say, "we're not barreling through an ice field at top speed."
Now, it's possible to self-regulate, to have a Doctor No on the payroll. The problem is nobody likes Doctor No. He costs money, and if he's doing his job, there are no accidents, so it looks like the money is just being wasted. So the pressure is always on to get rid of Doctor No, or at least muzzle him.
But if an outside force requires a Doctor No, then it's harder to get rid of him. This outside force is usually government. Now, don't get me wrong - even with regulation and outside oversight, things can go badly wrong. Any system designed and implemented by humans is inherently imperfect. However, getting rid of Doctor No increases the likelihood of things going south.
