This doesn't work if progress requires something like making a big jump from one cliff to another. Saying "let's move safely 1cm at a time" gets you to the edge of the cliff, and then you stop and you get nowhere.

It definitely could work if people felt more secure in taking the leap, because it wouldn't mean financial ruin and destitution for themselves or their family. Maybe even social grant opportunities to encourage it, instead trying to tap dance for venture capital.

Much also comes out of publicly funded research, and spinning those findings out into net gains for society instead of maximized profit would be good.

A beginner rock climber should generally practice how to move safely from static position to static position before trying any riskier dynamic moves. That approach will indeed limit where they can climb to, though. An experienced climber can lunge themselves through the air to grip an otherwise unreachable handhold, allowing them to climb to otherwise impossible places. Even the best, most experienced rock climbers in the world take an inherent risk when making dynamic moves like that, and occasionally die as a result.

I've gotten into climbing in the past, for the exercise and social aspects. I personally have no inherent desire to climb high enough to require a belay, and prefer the freedom of the bouldering walls in the gym. While I enjoy exploring big rocky areas of nature, I have no desire to dangle my legs over a cliff side or jump over crevices deep enough to severely injure or kill me, unless I have the appropriate safety equipment.

As a software engineer typically working on safety critical embedded systems, I try to work pragmatically and incrementally, with a focus on avoiding regressions. When I need to make a riskier move for the good of the system architecture, I'll once again make sure I have the appropriate safety equipment i.e. a peer reviewed plan, unit tests, tooling improvements, etc.

The CEO of the company I work for is actually a former professional rock climber. He and a couple other founders started the company with the goal of making an educational toy robot, and found success. They had a team of 20 or so, were shipping hardware, and had lined up millions of dollars of new investments. The founders then did some reflection, and realized that they didn't want to build toys. They took a huge leap and pivoted the company, and figuratively broke most of the company's bones in the process. Under a decade later, and it's a billion dollar company employing hundreds of people across the world, literally saving people from otherwise bleeding to death on a daily basis.

The company I work for wouldn't exist in its current form if people like the CEO hadn't taken massive risks and "taken their licks" in the process. The company also wouldn't exist in its current form if they hadn't hired methodical people like me to engineer sustainable technical solutions to serve the business's needs. It seems like there's benefit to embracing both approaches, and as a society we should encourage the diversity of thought rather than discourage one approach or another.

Also, there's risk in anything anyone ever does because life is fragile and ephemeral on a geological timescale. I'd rather live in a world where rock climbers plummet to their deaths occasionally rather than in a world without rock climbers. With the former, at least someone may one day invent Spock's rocket boots from Star Trek 5 (which he uses to save Kirk from otherwise plummeting to his death while rock climbing.)