631–640 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what you mean by "moving humanity forward". Just technological advancements without other considerations? In my opinion it should at least require reducing human suffering, and if ao he has done more harm than good
I agree with this. But imo its pretty clear that cheap and easy access to the internet on the entire globe is a clear win.
I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.
[flagged]
People can acknowledge a difference of values and recognize what they consider a destruction of the commons without their stance being distilled to simply being a hater.
Would you also considering people who bemoan the degradation of Lake Erie by industrialists of the last century as “crab mentality”?
Similarly, people at the time took what may be closer to the opposite stance: “Fundamentally this level of environmental degradation was accepted as a sign of success.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...
I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.
I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/gx04-who-owns-the-most-s...
* Most satellites were private owned, for communications or resource.
* Most government owned satellites have military use, the people that is trying to spy or nuke you or your neighbor.
* A small part is used for science and altruistic activities.
I just finished a long RV trip and I can tell you it's hard to underestimate the importance of internet access (which also means Wi-Fi calling and access to maps and weather) across our entire, enormous nation. It's important not only for individuals but even more for businesses. Despite cell phone company ads with handsome celebrities in the desert, cell phones actually do not work in many places. But people do need…
Once upon a time, people did long RV trips without internet access. Or even (cellular) phone access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Populations are far below replacement. Degrowth is assured.
Populations may drop, but why would you want quality of life to remain constant?
Or were you not responding to the argument that avoiding pollution is typical degrowth talk?
When Starlink first became available here in poor-ish Central-EU, I was excited. Then, only months later, but after years of planning: EU funding brought fiber to my farm area, at ~$25/900mbps 10ms. While my story is just n=1, I don't understand the huge upside for Starlink outside of Africa or India, where they have However, I am dumb, and very open to be convinced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel that way about street advertising, beautiful European cities with historical buildings all around and suddenly a big screen/panel asking you to buy whatever.
I had read that some municipalities in switzerland were banning them. Me, I just do what I can and at least trash the ones covering the windows on public transport here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
so what's the alternative? just don't make any progress?
We need to ensure our progress is balanced taking into account the whole system instead of just one part.
I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.
It's hard to find hard numbers, but IIUC even ignoring Elon's Space Program: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/gx04-who-owns-the-most-s... * Most satellites were private owned, for communications or resource. * Most government owned satellites have military use, the people that is trying to spy or nuke you or your neighbor. * A small part is used for science and altruistic activities.
They're such an enormous part of the problem that it does a disservice to the problem to not metaphorically shine a spotlight on them.
I had trouble finding another source that summed up the data so nicely, but other sources did corroborate these figures: https://satfleetlive.com/blogs/how-many-satellites-in-orbit/