Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..
Well, that's where more regulation could make a difference. How
about BFRs for drivers' licenses? Or having to be rated in type
before one can legally operate different classes of vehicles? I'm
not under any illusion that these practices could become a reality
in our society, but I'm sure that safety would improve dramatically
if they were.

Sure. I'd love to see stricter regulations and stricter performance
standards for drivers. Much stricter enforcement of current
standards would be a good place to start, for that matter. But
frankly, I believe that the only reason that standards are so strict
with airplanes is that people (the general public) have ALWAYS been
terrified of them. Since day one, airplanes have been freaking
people out.

The point is, whatever the rationale, I don't think that the stricter
standards both for design and operation of aircraft is a Bad Thing.

[...]
We lose a lot fewer smart people than dumb people. For some reason,
the smart people keep coming up with ways to save more dumb people.

So, I don't know what game it is you think we'll lose, but the only
game I see us losing is the one where natural selection takes out the
dumb people. Technology can't protect us 100%, but it can get pretty
close (and is already doing so).

IMO, that depends on whether you take a micro or macro view of the topic.
The "technology as savior" mindset has pretty far-reaching ramifications.
I appreciate the irony that I'm writing this on the day that the Kyoto
treaty goes into effect, and that the US and other major producers of
polutants aren't taking part in what even its supporters call an
inadequate first step to slow the destruction of our environment. ;-)

Regards,

Neil