Comment by inglor_cz

Comment by inglor_cz 15 hours ago

2 replies

For me, it absolutely is.

I find the recent religious switch towards worship of nature somewhat disconcerting, even though I like nature in general.

But one particular short stretch of Texan shore vs. space abilities of humanity as a whole doesn't seem a balanced problem to me. Starlink saves Ukrainian lives in battle and can save other lives in distress. It can also make countless human lives more comfortable, and a lot of businesses viable or more profitable. It is not a 'cool toy', it is one of the upcoming communication backbones of the planet, and it even protects some natural lands from being dug up, because it doesn't need laying of long cables across the wild.

I just cannot see how this could be considered as important as convenience of a few sea birds, who, if they are bothered by the launches, can fly a few miles away and be content again. After all, there is abundant wildlife around Cape Canaveral after 60 years of intense space activity - it is not as if rocket launches are a horrible Holocaust of all living things around. Nature adapts to changes. It always had.

bendigedig 15 hours ago

I am just going to leave this here for context:

Wildlife in 'catastrophic decline' due to human destruction, scientists warn - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048

  • inglor_cz 14 hours ago

    Two wrongs don't make a right. You won't help damaged/destroyed nature in some places by banning relatively harmless activities in completely different places. You will only harm net human prosperity.

    Spaceflight isn't anywhere close to, say, mining, when it comes to its negative effects on nature, not even 1 per cent as bad. And we still cannot simply ban mining if we want to continue our civilization.