That’s a very reductionist and dismissive take. Also it’s rude.
I’m an occasional astrophotographer, and the baseline of photos you can took are absolutely breathtaking now. Seeing this destroyed in real time is depressing.
I used to see a rare flyby of a satellite in the complete dark, but now it’s much more, and besides my personal annoyance, many people much more serious about sky and space are rightfully angry. Maybe you can ask them to grow up, too.
Not every progress is good progress. We should understand that by now. You should understand that better than all of us combined, since you’re apparently grown up, way more than us.
Many weapons designers thought they were making war “more humane” by creating weapons that killed faster and more decisively.
Haber, on chemical warfare: “The gas weapons are not at all more cruel than the flying iron pieces; on the contrary, the fraction of fatal gas diseases is comparatively smaller, the mutilations are missing.”
> Many weapons designers thought they were making war “more humane” by creating weapons that killed faster and more decisively.
Do you think the world would be better off if we still killed ourselves with swords instead of drones? The result is the same. A death is a death. The real cause of wars is not "better weapons".
And you're the judge of this based on your likes and hobbies?
Anyway, I agree. Just ask the people blocking the HS2 or CaHSR about how sad the train plowing through their communities makes them feel. We need to tear down all trains, not every progress is good progress
Would you say it might at least be fair to discuss how things that affect everyone are decided upon or how externalities are compensated for? Or should it be free for all?
The impartiality of those processes is a bit in question when the prime mover here is so far in bed with the executive that he gets to go up on stage during inauguration to sieg a few heils.
(And is then given a free hand to fire whomever he wants from the federal government.)
If there is a lot of change to how the night sky looks like could perhaps be worth a discussion on if the process is still the right one (and if it is global enough).
Yet with how political and dramatized the discussion around this is even on this website here, I fear that any opportunity to block or delay more SpaceX satellites will be used to the fullest.
I am concerned that this might hinder innovation. If you involve other countries, would this not be likely to become an extremely hard and slow regulatory process?
I understand that SpaceX's mitigation methods have been effective, and that the current satellites are on average around the limit of being visible to the naked eye under a very dark sky.
Personally I am eager to see more of these satellites enable 5G like cellular coverage outdoors in rural areas.
Perhaps I am more open to change in the appearance of nature than others. Some oppose also wind turbines in our mountains, where I usually think that they look cool and typically make the landscape more interesting.
I feel similarly. For example, when I see wind farms it gives me hope that we are moving towards more sustainable fuels. It also makes me feel like I've lived long enough to see the future.
With that said, I think we should have honest conversations about the benefits vs. the impacts, but also realize nothing is stagnant, not even nature.
I don't have the answers here, I a afraid, but not having at least the broader discussion might also not help (not sure what is already happening there, though).
It's not reductionist - planes and their vapor trails are a constant presence in the sky there and in many places. Far more obvious than even these 5-10x as many satellites will be. I'm sure there are cloud photographers who are bothered by plane but, as with Starlink, there are people getting good value from them. There are even photographers embracing them. I think you see the world how you're familiar with as good or at least acceptable but anything different as bad.
People are louder about things that have not yet taken hold because it's easier to stop them. The constant rumble of airplanes in the sky is a problem actually, but it's far more entrenched. Why is it difficult to understand that people notice and care about negative externalities of so-called "progress"?
Because it's a negative unhappy view. It's not enjoyable to hear people complaining about problems or imaginary problems everywhere - and it really is everywhere. It's hard to find news about exciting new technology without rampant negativity from the commenters. I suppose HN is particularly negative about technology but so is mainstream culture. It's also irrational - the world keeps getting better in leaps and bound but we hardly celebrate that. High speed low latency affordable internet in any remote place in the world is amazing!
Perhaps another offputting aspect of this is Musk-hate. People were excited about SpaceX and Tesla a decade ago. It was a rare burst of popular techno-optimism, but now they aren't able to appreciate anything Musk does because their minds are clouded with hate.
I don't think people have to be happy about everything happening around them, especially if they're tangibly harmed by them. "Good vibes only" is a toxic mentality. It only makes you ignore other people's view and pushes you inside your own bubble deeper.
The problems you declare imaginary creates real problems for many scientists. Mostly for astronomers. There are projects created solely to track space objects and space debris, so they can find windows to do their experiments without affected by these satellites. It's not Starlink only. We're crowding space so much that probability of Kessler Syndrome is increasing ever faster.
The world gets better and better, that's true, but it's not linear. How hard is it to accept that we make, sometimes costly, mistakes? Many "wonder" chemicals turned out to be deadly. We used to drink radon infused water. PFAS dangers have been knowingly hidden from general population for decades. Overuse of plastics is showing its effects now. I mean, we used to spray DDT to people's hair.
I don't care about high-speed low latency internet in the middle of a jungle. While I can understand its applications for remote sensing applications, there can be other ways to do that.
Personally, I don't "hate" anyone, it's a so strong of a word, but I dislike who damages ordinary people's lives for monies the same. For me Tesla's outrageous claims and AI datacenters' footprint is a bigger source of dislike. Starlink works at least, but it doesn't mean I'm favorable against its existence.
When the world is transforming to the techno-dystopias the SciFi books I have read warned about, how can I be happy? There's nothing to be excited about right now, maybe except renewable energy and some aspects of electric cars. Other than that we're going full-bore surveillance and oppression combined with destruction of nature and planet turned up to 11.
