4 ms·
I disagree with that poster as well, but this is a bit of an immature response. People are welcome to have worries about this stuff and it’s better to argue fo
by edgyquant 4y ago
I disagree with that poster as well, but this is a bit of an immature response. People are welcome to have worries about this stuff and it’s better to argue for their arguments being misguided than tell them to go live in the woods if they don’t like it.
- evandale 4y agoAt a certain point the only way to get through to people is to respond in a way that matches their maturity level. When people are saying ridiculous things like "You will be as insouciant, and as clueless, when your much-admired billionaire masters destroy the last remaining living ecosystem" about satellites in LEO you're not dealing with a person with adult emotions. For one, the last time I checked LEO isn't an ecosystem with living things in it and I can't think of a single ecosystem out there we could destroy. Whatever "ecosystem" that exists in LEO is an ecosystem _we_ created. I guarantee good old "nature" won't be creating life there anytime soon if you're excluding humans from nature.
- crispinb 4y agoIf it's "mature" to disregard basic values, then we're stuffed. Attitudes and values cluster. People who care about night skies also care about ecosystems. Denatured, psychologically-damaged people who value neither, destroy both. There is no distinction between "nature" and anything else. There is only the real physical world.
- evandale 4y ago> There is no distinction between "nature" and anything else. Yet here you are calling us "denatured, psychologically damaged people." Is that not you making a distinction between us and nature? What's so bad about being denatured if there's no distinction between nature and everything else? You can't be denatured if you _are_ nature, it's contradictory. What exactly is your view here?