|
Hi
Brent,
The risk that
any individual is willing to accept for themselves, is not something that we
have any control over. I think we all understand that. What we do
have control over is how we react to a person taking a risk that is clearly out
of the norm, relative to the inherent risks already associated with our
collective knowledge and experience. If we know, or even can reasonable
deduce, that a particular design is dangerous, we have a duty to make that known
or we share in the responsibility of promoting that bad design. If our
collective advice is ignored, then so be it.
We don't have
to get into the politics of wealth or even consider the quality of life of a
poor chinese laborer. Good design and fabrication that meets or
exceeds the operational requirements of a particular submarine should
be an uncompromisable foundational concept and basic "truth" that transcends
arbitrary issues such as financial, social, or political status. If
designing and fabricating a submersible to standards that reliably permit
submergence to 10 meters (and resurfacing) costs more than the yearly salary of
a poor chinese laborer, then that is a fact worth living with, regardless
of how badly we might feel that their dreams may not be met.
Safety first,
dreams second. That is the balance we can provide as a group of
knowledgable home-builders. It is a philosophy that is equally burdensome
on the wealthy and the poor, and allows innovation regardless of financial,
political, or social status.
Jon
|