I'm looking forward to the Beta Bias article, but I don't think your example was particularly well chosen. First of all aviation had enthusiasts tinkering for centuries with very little success, so scepticism was warranted. It none the less exploded as a sport even before the war, with aviation events drawing huge crowds and the interest of military observers. Flying was seen as a good sport for officers, just like car races, as it encouraged a daring mindset and initiative. It also had a huge cultural impact from the get go. Airplane use cases for military purposes were still not obvious at the time, as its propable role was nestled between the balloon (for artillery spotting) and cavalry (for field reconnaisance), which where both well established in military structure. Still, there was a huge enthusiasm for aviation, and I think that the Guardian article is an outlier.
The airship, on the other hand, can not really be considered a mature technology by 1908. In that year LZ4 crashes, and that, together with several earlier crashes nearly bankrupted Count Zeppelin, one of the pioneers of large scale rigid airship construction. He could only continue development thanks to a national donation campain. Commercial Zeppelin flights started only in 1909, and by 1913 twelve Zeppelins of the 19 build so farbhad been destroyed in accidents. Still the airship was the superior technology for commercial long range flights till the end of the 1930s, with higher range and greater passenger capacity and comfort than planes. Commercial non-stop flights over the Atlantic were available from the 1920s - the first non-stop transatlantic commercial flight with an airplane became available in 1939.
I can no way be as erudite as Mr. Schmidt (below), but while I can appreciate the Guardian article and this post in the context of the Pessimists Archive, it stopped me in my tracks when I saw that the Manchester Guardian issue cited was published on 9/11. Jesus wept.
I'm looking forward to the Beta Bias article, but I don't think your example was particularly well chosen. First of all aviation had enthusiasts tinkering for centuries with very little success, so scepticism was warranted. It none the less exploded as a sport even before the war, with aviation events drawing huge crowds and the interest of military observers. Flying was seen as a good sport for officers, just like car races, as it encouraged a daring mindset and initiative. It also had a huge cultural impact from the get go. Airplane use cases for military purposes were still not obvious at the time, as its propable role was nestled between the balloon (for artillery spotting) and cavalry (for field reconnaisance), which where both well established in military structure. Still, there was a huge enthusiasm for aviation, and I think that the Guardian article is an outlier.
The airship, on the other hand, can not really be considered a mature technology by 1908. In that year LZ4 crashes, and that, together with several earlier crashes nearly bankrupted Count Zeppelin, one of the pioneers of large scale rigid airship construction. He could only continue development thanks to a national donation campain. Commercial Zeppelin flights started only in 1909, and by 1913 twelve Zeppelins of the 19 build so farbhad been destroyed in accidents. Still the airship was the superior technology for commercial long range flights till the end of the 1930s, with higher range and greater passenger capacity and comfort than planes. Commercial non-stop flights over the Atlantic were available from the 1920s - the first non-stop transatlantic commercial flight with an airplane became available in 1939.
I can no way be as erudite as Mr. Schmidt (below), but while I can appreciate the Guardian article and this post in the context of the Pessimists Archive, it stopped me in my tracks when I saw that the Manchester Guardian issue cited was published on 9/11. Jesus wept.