Comment by AndrewKemendo
6 years ago
There's not one.
Time and time again, organizations prove that product design/project management by consensus leads to budget overruns and under delivery.
Quality at speed requires dictatorial like organisation with high risk to all. In every example given people died, more were maimed and even more had mental breakdowns. Seems like most people aren't willing to be a part of something like that today and there doesn't seem to be any popular cause that would motivate such projects.
> In every example given people died, more were maimed and even more had mental breakdowns. Seems like most people aren't willing to be a part of something like that today and there doesn't seem to be any popular cause that would motivate such projects.
People are still totally willing to be part of something like that; people are as haphazard and risky as they ever were. The government won't let them because it doesn't trust people to assess the risks properly (there is evidence that the government is right; people are very bad at assessing risk).
However improving safety probably isn't going to cause the speed reductions, safety and speed don't usually conflict. The fastest way is often also a very safe way because it involves less unnecessary exposure of people to hazards. The issue is the government deciding that work flat-out can't be done (eg, can't open a mine, can't build a highway, can't build a building, can't hire/fire someone, etc, etc). There is usually a good reason but at the end of the day building infrastructure is a break-eggs-make-omelette situation. We don't know how to build infrastructure at scale without collateral damage, as it were. If we first gain consensus that something is a good idea, infrastructure will not be built.
> People are still totally willing to be part of something like that; people are as haphazard and risky as they ever were.
I think people were much more willing to risk their lives (and risk other people’s lives) in the past than they are today. We have elevated the role of the individual. Younger generations are all “me” generations. (I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it’s true for me as well.)
Case in point is the Western expectation of acceptable losses due to warfare. If we needed to pull off another D Day invasion, I don’t think we could. Generation Z is not signing up to die in tens of thousands and I don’t blame them. The casualty rates that were once seen as the normal cost of war and industry are totally unacceptable today.
I think you're partly right here. The ingredients for people to risk their lives is not right. As history has shown us though, that can change very quickly. I hope it doesn't for all our sake.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, most Americans wanted no part in the war. After the attack and growing threat of Hilter, people saw the need to bet our enemies at all costs by taking crazy risks.
People change based on circumstances. While newer generations might be considered "soft" and all about "me" compared to previous ones, I'd say they'd likely rise to the occasion if needed.
This is a somewhat misleading argument. The US did away with the draft so that most people have not had to make this choice. The troops that did go to the Middle East wars have suffered many casualties (6-7K dead, many more wounded, many US contractors dead/wounded, PTSD/suicides/mental health issues afterwards, etc.). [1] All those affected were volunteers.
It's also clear that there are times when virtually everyone in the US has agreed on the necessity of war, the 9/11 attacks being the latest case in point. Conversely, many wars that in retrospect might seem to have been widely supported were in fact quite controversial. The Civil War is a case in point. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt... [2] https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/draft-riot...
3 replies →
And if we don't get consensus we'll pay the consequences for decades or centuries to come. E.g. mining operations in many places polluted the local waterways and underground water sources. Fracking today is another good example - if you ask the locals no way it will happen.
> People are still totally willing to be part of something like that; people are as haphazard and risky as they ever were. The government won't let them because it doesn't trust people to assess the risks properly (there is evidence that the government is right; people are very bad at assessing risk).
The government doesn't let people partake in hazardous work? Which government is that? For example, the U.S. government will not stop you from working in mines, electronics industry, construction, or in automotive production. Corners cut when it comes to safety to save on cost still happens everywhere.
I've heard that SpaceX is a bit like that, and is advertised as such. People sign up. I do think people are willing to plow into things that truly are that inspiring, but we just don't do much of that stuff. It's usually not profitable.
It's also not always pleasant. A guy who went through special forces told me once: "I'm glad I did it, but I would never do it again."
This might be an unpopular comment, but I think at least part of the reason you don't see people plow into inspiring things these days is less about lack of profitability and more about an overabundance of diversity.
Inspiration looks different to different people. If people don't have a shared vision, they aren't going to be able to collaborate on shared projects at the same level as people that do have a shared vision.
Yep. I thought about it after I read someone commenting on SpaceX employees having the "pleasure" of working frequent overtime.
I guess some of the things that keep them going, deep inside are the same the keep people climbing every mountain there is and then free soloing:
They have to prove it to themselves (and maybe others) that it can be done.
Then there's Apple under Steve Jobs and the covert 5-year-long project that lead to the creation of the iPhone. I don't think it was that fast compared to what companies achieve nowadays, but it certainly was accomplished due in part to Jobs' quasi-dictatorial leadership.
In every example given people died
People died writing Unix and JavaScript?
Painful and discouraging virtual casualties which make it difficult to justify more ambitious or even equally functional efforts under 21st century conditions.
We all died a little with the creation of JavaScript.
Agreed. These days it's impossible to select a site and begin demolishing the neighborhood within the same month.
> [T]he Sausalito site selected on 3 March... construction began on 28 March.... Construction start was delayed two weeks to allow the 42 families living on Pine Point, which was scheduled to be demolished to build the shipyard, to move.
> In every example given people died, more were maimed and even more had mental breakdowns.
I can't find any citations for deaths in many of these examples (Treasure Island, Disneyland, Pentagon). Where are you coming to this conclusion from?
People certainly died in the construction of the Empire State Building. I think I calculated that the risk of death for a worker on that was higher than the risk for a soldier deployed in Afghanistan.
Those that died while building the great wall of China were literally used as filler material for the wall.