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.

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?

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

> 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.

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

Those two accidents didn't "happen here" and our news is very isolated from the rest of the world. Maybe that's what he means?

No one died or was seriously injured in the decompression event. But people die in car wrecks on the highway everyday

How does PTSD factor into your empathy radar? Is that not a serious injury and impediment to a life lived unabated?