4 ms·

> The modern space business is accelerating our big problems on Earth, which are biodiversity loss, climate change, and energy (all of which have a single commo

> The modern space business is accelerating our big problems on Earth, which are biodiversity loss, climate change, and energy (all of which have a single common cause: abundant energy and our use of it). Earth observation satellites are incredibly useful for monitoring sea levels, tracking atmospheric CO2, identifying methane emissions, measuring deforestation, levels of sea ice, etc. Sure rocket launches are dirty, but their environmental impact seems pretty minimal; whilst the benefits for monitoring and model-calibration are huge.

ChatGTP 3y ago
Sure rocket launches are dirty, but their environmental impact seems pretty minimal; whilst the benefits for monitoring and model-calibration are huge. So this argument is kind of made about everything? "x isn't really that bad, so many benefits...". What we would benefit from is an understanding of absolute necessities and things with immense benefit to our quality of life, and then work back from there. Probably tax usage appropriately. Then we can judge how far from the mark "x" is and maybe consider if it's worth polluting or whatever for. Starlink, very cool tech, is it really required? I'd say no. Save that for once we've decarbonized 95% of the economy by 2030, for example, then we can go launch a thousand rockets maybe. Another one is driving the kids to soccer practice in an ICE powered SUV, absolute lunacy given where we are with the climate crisis and a great way to contribute to a shit future for your children.
- TapWaterBandit 3y ago
  > Starlink, very cool tech, is it really required? I'd say no. Come back and say this after spending a year living in rural Africa, the Outback in Australia, fighting the war in Ukraine, or countless other places with very unreliable internet. Your whole comment reeks of "I've got mine, so why does anyone else need this stuff?" Starlink has been revolutionary in rural communities to allow them to access educational/informational opportunities and is only growing in useful and popularity around the world. Get out of your bubble. It's massively hypocritical to only live in places with great internet and disparage the tech providing it to others who don't live there.
  - palata 3y ago
    > Come back and say this after spending a year living in rural Africa Sure. And what will Starlink do for them when climate is so bad they cannot eat?
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Er, I'd say it's the opposite, I'm saying Musk probably doesn't need the profits and people in remote areas of the world need a working climate to survive more than they need Twitter access provided to them by burning a massive load of fossil fuels to make it happen?
  - dsr_ 3y ago
    Which is more useful for the people living in rural Africa: Starlink receivers that cost as much as a village's entire disposable income, or a government which prioritizes education and health? Ukraine used to have pretty good Internet based on wires and fiber. Which would be better in the long term: more Starlink, or the end of the Russian invasion?
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Re: Africa. One costs a couple pennies per day per person, the other dollars per day per person. The latter is more useful, but given the cost difference I'd certainly hope so.
    - minorannoyance2 3y ago
      You can provide the Starlink receiver for a set cost and receive a fairly stable return on that investment for this village, you cannot buy a stable government which prioritizes education and health with any amount of money. This is not a fair comparison. Re: Ukraine, again, Starlink had a fairly significant positive impact, both as a military asset and as humanitarian aid. Ending the Russian invasion? That's something that half the world wants right now and billions have been spent towards that goal. It's an even more ridiculous comparison. If you want a fair comparison compare Starlink to actual competing types of aid.
- chriswarbo 3y ago
  > What we would benefit from is an understanding of absolute necessities and things with immense benefit to our quality of life, and then work back from there. Probably tax usage appropriately. Then we can judge how far from the mark "x" is and maybe consider if it's worth polluting or whatever for. It's probably easier to go the other way: identify the largest problems, and try to tackle those. No point trying to fight hundreds of entrenched behaviours and industries to prevent only a fraction of a percent of emissions. Better to make a dent in the big boys (electricity generation, transportation, land use, etc.) > Starlink, very cool tech, is it really required? I'd say no. It's certainly debatable. A handful of geostationary satellites can provide basic connectivity; starlink's only purpose is speed. > Another one is driving the kids to soccer practice in an ICE powered SUV, absolute lunacy given where we are with the climate crisis and a great way to contribute to a shit future for your children. Right: this is higher-up the list of things that can make a difference. It's only lunacy from a distance: it's often a local optimum, due to problems like car-dependency, suburban sprawl, low fossil fuel prices, gameable emission standards, oil subsidies, under-funded mass transit, vehicle-size arms race, etc. Improving those will change the cost landscape, and give local optima that are less pathological (e.g. kids transporting themselves to soccer practice).
  - palata 3y ago
    > It's probably easier to go the other way: identify the largest problems, and try to tackle those. No point trying to fight hundreds of entrenched behaviours and industries to prevent only a fraction of a percent of emissions. Unfortunately, I think we're passed that point. We need all of it. We need to change our society in a much more fundamental way than most are willing to accept. It's not "just" getting rid of aviation and meat, it's much more. We need to rethink society, and we need to do it now.
    - chriswarbo 3y ago
      You've put "just" in quotes, but I don't see anyone making that claim. I agree we need radical changes to our behaviour, societies, economies, etc. The most effective way to do that is to tackle the biggest problems first; that's the best use of time, political capital, activist enthusiasm, news attention, etc. (I say this as a vegetarian with no kids, who doesn't know how to drive and has spent the last few years working in the public transport sector; knowing none of these small actions will offset even a tiny fraction of the destruction being inflicted by oil companies, their paid-for politicians, etc.)
- dotnet00 3y ago
  Following that logic, do we really need anything? Let's just regress 1000 years? For all the talk about only doing things that help the climate, I assume you're not in computers and are actually working for some environment focused NGO full time, never taking a flight to anywhere, avoiding driving unless absolutely necessary, not relying on food and goods that aren't locally produced. Practicing what you preach and all?
  - palata 3y ago
    > Following that logic, do we really need anything? Let's just regress 1000 years? I think we can agree that we need peace, food, shelter. The thing is that for most people on Earth, it's really not clear that they will keep that in their current life. And it's not just a "only poor countries will be in a bad situation". We're talking global instability now. What happens when you have famines in Europe?
palata 3y ago
> Earth observation satellites are incredibly useful for monitoring sea levels, tracking atmospheric CO2, identifying methane emissions, measuring deforestation, levels of sea ice, etc. And we already have them, don't we? SpaceX is making a business out of space, never forget that.
- sidlls 3y ago
  Humans being what they are, this seems like it was bound to happen anyway. We may as well exploit space for profit! Hopefully regulated well (ha ha).
  - palata 3y ago
    Actually, that's the case for every species. If ants could work around natural regulatory mechanisms (like predators and diseases), they would probably destroy the Earth as well. The question now is: are we humans capable of controlling ourselves, or are we just too primitive for that, waiting for nature to solve our problem (by killing most of us)?
- chriswarbo 3y ago
  > And we already have them, don't we? We have some, yes. More are in development, and launching all the time. For example, this schedule shows many going up later this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_in_July–December_2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_i... > SpaceX is making a business out of space, never forget that. Yes. What's your point? If you want some sort of gotcha about the externalities of capitalism, you'd perhaps do better by choosing a company that's not the only one to re-use their rockets.
  - palata 3y ago
    > We have some, yes. More are in development, and launching all the time. But do we need them? We know what we need to do for climate change. The thing is that if we can send more satellites, we will. That's the rebound effect. > you'd perhaps do better by choosing a company that's not the only one to re-use their rockets. Well, Saturn V was not reusable, but they could not afford sending thousands of them. The very fact that SpaceX can re-use their rockets allows for a huge rebound effect, making many SpaceX launches much worse than a few one-off launches. Same goes for 5G: if you use it exactly the same way, it's more efficient than 4G. But we can use it more, so we do. So 5G emits more than 4G globally. We need to count with rebound effects: do not build new technology that you don't depend on today, because you will depend on it later and it will emit more.

ChatGTP 3y ago

Sure rocket launches are dirty, but their environmental impact seems pretty minimal; whilst the benefits for monitoring and model-calibration are huge. So this argument is kind of made about everything? "x isn't really that bad, so many benefits...". What we would benefit from is an understanding of absolute necessities and things with immense benefit to our quality of life, and then work back from there. Probably tax usage appropriately. Then we can judge how far from the mark "x" is and maybe consider if it's worth polluting or whatever for. Starlink, very cool tech, is it really required? I'd say no. Save that for once we've decarbonized 95% of the economy by 2030, for example, then we can go launch a thousand rockets maybe. Another one is driving the kids to soccer practice in an ICE powered SUV, absolute lunacy given where we are with the climate crisis and a great way to contribute to a shit future for your children.

TapWaterBandit 3y ago
> Starlink, very cool tech, is it really required? I'd say no. Come back and say this after spending a year living in rural Africa, the Outback in Australia, fighting the war in Ukraine, or countless other places with very unreliable internet. Your whole comment reeks of "I've got mine, so why does anyone else need this stuff?" Starlink has been revolutionary in rural communities to allow them to access educational/informational opportunities and is only growing in useful and popularity around the world. Get out of your bubble. It's massively hypocritical to only live in places with great internet and disparage the tech providing it to others who don't live there.
- palata 3y ago
  > Come back and say this after spending a year living in rural Africa Sure. And what will Starlink do for them when climate is so bad they cannot eat?
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Er, I'd say it's the opposite, I'm saying Musk probably doesn't need the profits and people in remote areas of the world need a working climate to survive more than they need Twitter access provided to them by burning a massive load of fossil fuels to make it happen?
- dsr_ 3y ago
  Which is more useful for the people living in rural Africa: Starlink receivers that cost as much as a village's entire disposable income, or a government which prioritizes education and health? Ukraine used to have pretty good Internet based on wires and fiber. Which would be better in the long term: more Starlink, or the end of the Russian invasion?
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Re: Africa. One costs a couple pennies per day per person, the other dollars per day per person. The latter is more useful, but given the cost difference I'd certainly hope so.
  - minorannoyance2 3y ago
    You can provide the Starlink receiver for a set cost and receive a fairly stable return on that investment for this village, you cannot buy a stable government which prioritizes education and health with any amount of money. This is not a fair comparison. Re: Ukraine, again, Starlink had a fairly significant positive impact, both as a military asset and as humanitarian aid. Ending the Russian invasion? That's something that half the world wants right now and billions have been spent towards that goal. It's an even more ridiculous comparison. If you want a fair comparison compare Starlink to actual competing types of aid.
chriswarbo 3y ago
> What we would benefit from is an understanding of absolute necessities and things with immense benefit to our quality of life, and then work back from there. Probably tax usage appropriately. Then we can judge how far from the mark "x" is and maybe consider if it's worth polluting or whatever for. It's probably easier to go the other way: identify the largest problems, and try to tackle those. No point trying to fight hundreds of entrenched behaviours and industries to prevent only a fraction of a percent of emissions. Better to make a dent in the big boys (electricity generation, transportation, land use, etc.) > Starlink, very cool tech, is it really required? I'd say no. It's certainly debatable. A handful of geostationary satellites can provide basic connectivity; starlink's only purpose is speed. > Another one is driving the kids to soccer practice in an ICE powered SUV, absolute lunacy given where we are with the climate crisis and a great way to contribute to a shit future for your children. Right: this is higher-up the list of things that can make a difference. It's only lunacy from a distance: it's often a local optimum, due to problems like car-dependency, suburban sprawl, low fossil fuel prices, gameable emission standards, oil subsidies, under-funded mass transit, vehicle-size arms race, etc. Improving those will change the cost landscape, and give local optima that are less pathological (e.g. kids transporting themselves to soccer practice).
- palata 3y ago
  > It's probably easier to go the other way: identify the largest problems, and try to tackle those. No point trying to fight hundreds of entrenched behaviours and industries to prevent only a fraction of a percent of emissions. Unfortunately, I think we're passed that point. We need all of it. We need to change our society in a much more fundamental way than most are willing to accept. It's not "just" getting rid of aviation and meat, it's much more. We need to rethink society, and we need to do it now.
  - chriswarbo 3y ago
    You've put "just" in quotes, but I don't see anyone making that claim. I agree we need radical changes to our behaviour, societies, economies, etc. The most effective way to do that is to tackle the biggest problems first; that's the best use of time, political capital, activist enthusiasm, news attention, etc. (I say this as a vegetarian with no kids, who doesn't know how to drive and has spent the last few years working in the public transport sector; knowing none of these small actions will offset even a tiny fraction of the destruction being inflicted by oil companies, their paid-for politicians, etc.)
dotnet00 3y ago
Following that logic, do we really need anything? Let's just regress 1000 years? For all the talk about only doing things that help the climate, I assume you're not in computers and are actually working for some environment focused NGO full time, never taking a flight to anywhere, avoiding driving unless absolutely necessary, not relying on food and goods that aren't locally produced. Practicing what you preach and all?
- palata 3y ago
  > Following that logic, do we really need anything? Let's just regress 1000 years? I think we can agree that we need peace, food, shelter. The thing is that for most people on Earth, it's really not clear that they will keep that in their current life. And it's not just a "only poor countries will be in a bad situation". We're talking global instability now. What happens when you have famines in Europe?

palata 3y ago

> Earth observation satellites are incredibly useful for monitoring sea levels, tracking atmospheric CO2, identifying methane emissions, measuring deforestation, levels of sea ice, etc. And we already have them, don't we? SpaceX is making a business out of space, never forget that.

sidlls 3y ago
Humans being what they are, this seems like it was bound to happen anyway. We may as well exploit space for profit! Hopefully regulated well (ha ha).
- palata 3y ago
  Actually, that's the case for every species. If ants could work around natural regulatory mechanisms (like predators and diseases), they would probably destroy the Earth as well. The question now is: are we humans capable of controlling ourselves, or are we just too primitive for that, waiting for nature to solve our problem (by killing most of us)?
chriswarbo 3y ago
> And we already have them, don't we? We have some, yes. More are in development, and launching all the time. For example, this schedule shows many going up later this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_in_July–December_2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_launches_i... > SpaceX is making a business out of space, never forget that. Yes. What's your point? If you want some sort of gotcha about the externalities of capitalism, you'd perhaps do better by choosing a company that's not the only one to re-use their rockets.
- palata 3y ago
  > We have some, yes. More are in development, and launching all the time. But do we need them? We know what we need to do for climate change. The thing is that if we can send more satellites, we will. That's the rebound effect. > you'd perhaps do better by choosing a company that's not the only one to re-use their rockets. Well, Saturn V was not reusable, but they could not afford sending thousands of them. The very fact that SpaceX can re-use their rockets allows for a huge rebound effect, making many SpaceX launches much worse than a few one-off launches. Same goes for 5G: if you use it exactly the same way, it's more efficient than 4G. But we can use it more, so we do. So 5G emits more than 4G globally. We need to count with rebound effects: do not build new technology that you don't depend on today, because you will depend on it later and it will emit more.