Maybe we need this kind of optimistic bias in order to get anything new done. The road to every improvement is littered with failures, whose trying and failing was nevertheless necessary to the overall success.
Haber process also has its negatives, such as an ammonia resource for war, and the growing use of factory/unsustainable farming actually threatens environments and clean water. It is also one of the biggest consumers of energy on the planet.
Maybe a better example is the transistor(and tons of other stuff) from Bell Labs, but AT&T wasn't exactly a plucky startup, and has a monopolistic/anti-competitive past that tarnishes its history.
Maybe both of these examples show the importance of research, and the ability to tinker/explore solutions without profit motive pressures getting in the way.
Maybe there are many reasons to do research and people will often learn just for the sake of learning. But to turn that research into an actual useful, available product on the shelf - you need a profit motivation. Otherwise nobody will do the unsexy work and then there will not be money and nice condition for pure research either.
"Communists are scary" is a poor argument.
Basically everything in your dwelling.
I would like to see environments where entrepreneurs are encouraged, and where failure doesn't mean financial ruin. The current landscape sees a lot of people betting their futures, or being completely unable to participate(health insurance/family concerns).
Starving people are not good for the environment. They stop caring about anything but getting food.
Profit-driven farms are why you're able to type into your computer complaints about capitalism, sipping your morning Starbucks, rather than holding a cup on a streetcorner begging for an apple.
US farming/agriculture actually has a long history of relying on government relief, subsidies, tariffs and low-cost/free federal land use to remain profitable.
Sure many individuals will fail, but if you planned everything - you will recover. And the benefits for the collective/country are just so big.
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.)
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.