It's only unwinnable if your definition of winning is to cause more harm to society than the value you create.
Your arms race argument is valid, but I think there's a lot of progress to be made before that negative effect dominates. I don't think we're currently at the optimum equilibrium of regulation vs. evasion. If the punishment for murder causes murderers to evade capture, society matches their efforts; it doesn't just give up.
My definition of "winning" is making a useful product that sells & turns a profit. But if the liability is unlimited & unknowable, your new chemical might turn a profit & do some good - or you might be sued into bankruptcy, and you can't know for sure which it will be, no matter how much study you do. It's just gambling.
With liability limits, you can do the math on whether a chemical is worth the risk because while some things are unknowable, your maximum liability is already established.
That's why I favor a "due diligence" regulatory arrangement.
> But if the liability is unlimited & unknowable, your new chemical might turn a profit & do some good - or you might be sued into bankruptcy, and you can't know for sure which it will be, no matter how much study you do. It's just gambling.
New technology is always a gamble. It's just a matter of who pays -- the people who profited, or the bystanders who had nothing to do with it? If you want to do business and protect yourself against downside risk, take out insurance and do enough due diligence to satisfy the insurance provider. Passing off the risks to third parties just because currently there is no accountability system in place is not a just system.
Your arms race argument is valid, but I think there's a lot of progress to be made before that negative effect dominates. I don't think we're currently at the optimum equilibrium of regulation vs. evasion. If the punishment for murder causes murderers to evade capture, society matches their efforts; it doesn't just give up.