Why would there be such value in a dumb contract platform like that? Historically, what societies have chosen to adopt such a set of values?
Ok, people say it’s not secure, contracts can be hacked, but why not back these smart contracts by law? And when issues/breaches happen have a judge decide. These tools should be complementary and should not eliminate each other. We can and probably will have smart contracts alongside the day-to-day bureaucracy to help us with the simple stuff at first. Like when I need to pay a couple thousand to a notary for changing ownership of an estate only because of trust issues. If that is not ripe for disruption then I don’t know what is.
It’s like trying to jump from manual driving to fully automated driving and complaining it’s not safe and it won’t work.
I don't really agree with that worldview, but not strongly enough to bet that it won't reach some fairly safe equilibrium at some point. Even then though, a major bug could be lurking for years just waiting to be exploited later.
In the end, what’s perfect in the world around us? Big banks fail and lose people’s savings, cars break and cause deaths and it has’t stopped people from adopting these on a large scale and keep on improving them.
In the physical world, we arbitrate contracts with authorities vested with the power to make decisions over them, such as courts, governments, mediators, etc that both parties have agreed has the final say, because the alternative is unworkable.
In a consensus system such as a blockchain, that consensus is based on a majority of the participants. Wanting them to have no say on the outcome of actions is like wanting the courts to have no jurisdiction over your contracts.