Comment by s1artibartfast 10 months ago
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.
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.
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?
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.
I know you are trying to be snarky, but I genuinely think that it is not that important. See my sibling comments.
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?