Clearly the MCAS situation - even if this accident doesn't turn out to be rooted in MCAS - is a strong indicator.
Agreed. Aerodynamic problems have been buffered by computerized controls at least since OXCART, which experienced lopsided flameouts at close to Mach 3 because the pilots were unable to manually adjust the intake cones with adequate precision. It was a fight to get the test pilots to agree to the automation at that time, even though a couple had been lost.
Now, 60 years later, we seem to have turned 180 degrees in our thinking. As little as I understand MCAS, it is clear, at least to me, that it is a computer controlled solution to aerodynamic instability inherent in the design.
While computerized aerodynamic stabilization of inherently unstable new designs may be the trajectory of future, to apply it as a fix as we push 50 year old designs to new limits may prove to be a mistake.