It's pretty simple no, the model that is reasonable and antifragile is within our grasp, a model that includes degrees of error more than it reifies hewing towards 0 carrying costs. It's more the good will and good faith across the board to use that known simple math, as sneaky monkey minds in our midst see that if they defect they can win some edge in the short term (and again, a better model shows the true utility and total harmed effect) and then it's a race to the bottom and a world of basically the prisoners dilemma. Making that thinking anathema in human culture should be the focus. I don't know that a grass roots effort could out-compete existing networks of power and influence, nor that a total reset of players is possible either.

It's aligning the incentives of top management with the slightly longer term outcomes. If stock grants are based on this quarter's performance, "slack" seems much less important.

Exactly, if you get rewarded for the 5% improvements annually but are out before the once-a-decade near death experiences.. you end up with more Intels, GMs, Boeings, etc.