That is positively absurd.
It might make sense to reevaluate what is the most efficient allocation of resources which would result in the greatest holistic safety increase per resource spent, but throwing everything out to reach the lowest common denominator is just straight up nonsense.
The only way that makes sense is if you assume a completely uniform risk tolerance, completely uniform mitigation ROI, and you assume the highest risk activity is the true underlying uniform risk tolerance with the other 99% of low risk activities being the outliers. Literally every one of those assumptions is ludicrous.
It's irrational to use this level of paranoid aviation safety because the same people also do all kinds of stuff that isn't remotely as safe against ill intentioned individuals
To me the point is that there are many things that are used by billions of people and can kill thousands of people per incident when things go wrong, if even one such system has zero safety (for whatever reason ranging from economics to culture) then it makes sense to roll down safety of every other such system to zero as well to pursue quality of life between now and the not so distant moment when something goes wrong