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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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...
That is objectively not "many casualties". Which was also his point (which you apparently did not understand, somehow).
And I find your implication that as long as people volunteer it's fine if they die quite disturbing, although funnily enough a perfect example of the "me"-generation the poster you were replying to was talking about! Who cares what my country is doing as long as I'm not affected right!
Having a small fraction of US society bear the costs of prolonged wars is a terrible policy that brought unnecessary pain to 10s of thousands of American families and many more in countries like Iraq. It also allowed American involvement in those wars to continue unchecked. If we want them to stop the simplest solution is to bring back the draft.
p.s., I was in the volunteer military (USAF).
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."
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.
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.
People died writing Unix and JavaScript?
> [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.
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?