Comment by s1artibartfast

Comment by s1artibartfast 16 hours ago

11 replies

Thats subjective, but I would say yes. I would happily pave over the entire wetland for a fraction of the value provided by the launch facility.

Given that in reality starbase has negligible tangible impact on the wetland, the whole concern seems overblown to me.

squigz 15 hours ago

> I would happily pave over the entire wetland for a fraction of the value provided by the launch facility.

They're not that important anyway. Oh wait.

  • s1artibartfast 13 hours ago

    I know you are trying to be snarky, but I genuinely think that it is not that important. See my sibling comments.

Teever 16 hours ago

How much environmental destruction would you consider unacceptable for an endeavour like Starship?

How do you justify that amount of environmental destruction by a single organization like SpaceX in context of the tragedy of the commons?

  • s1artibartfast 13 hours ago

    How much is an interesting question because it is difficult to quantify - There is no "unit" for ecological destruction. I said above, i think it is worth paving over the entire estuary, which is about 2 square miles.

    If I were to put an upper limit on it, it would probably be 100x that.

    As for justification, I think that the common value of the local habitat is miniscule, and the common value of SpaceX is immense.

    some small number of people use the wild refuge for bird watching and the like, meanwhile SpaceX internet provides millions of people access to education, telemedicine, employment, and/or entertainment. Further development will help advance global Astronomy and encourage space exploration.

    • Teever 10 hours ago

      You say this as if the refuge is a thing that lives in isolation and isn't connected to the broader environment in which it exists.

      Do you think that it is possible that the destruction of some distant ecological system could destroy this one? And by extension do you think that it is possible that the destruction of this system could destroy another one?

      • s1artibartfast 9 hours ago

        I have no misconception of isolation. I studied postgraduate marine biology before following the money into biotech, and have about a dozen friends in state environmental agencies.

        There would be some consequences, but within limits. The earth wouldnt stop spinning and explode. There would likely be some marginal impact to migratory birds and local fishery, but it wouldn't cause mountainous in Tibet to go extinct or anything like that.

        Anyways, Costal wetlands usually change constantly under natural conditions. Most of our static wetlands are already extremely unnatural, because cities and states have gone to great lengths to modify them in some ways and keep them from changing. They are about as natural as central park or a zoo.

  • ryan93 15 hours ago

    Natural erosion destroys orders of magnitude more wetland than spacex.

    • squigz 15 hours ago

      Yeah and the key word there is "natural"

      • inglor_cz 15 hours ago

        Not for me. If natural outcomes of type X and frequency Y are tolerable to us and we don't fight them, it indicates that this sort of outcome should be tolerable in general.