5 ms·

Hundreds of millions if not billions of people gain absolutely no benefit from this yet they have the common good(night view of the sky) polluted by an American

Hundreds of millions if not billions of people gain absolutely no benefit from this yet they have the common good(night view of the sky) polluted by an American billionaire so he can make more money. I hate it with passion - as much as Starlink is amazing from a technological point of view and the nerd inside me loves it, I don't think it should be allowed, full stop.

krona 3y ago
There's lots of infrastructure which people gain nothing from directly. This sounds like an Anarcho-primitivist line of argument.
stainablesteel 3y ago
that's not true, the technological innovations of yesterday have brought more wealth, less poverty, and more overall benefit to the entirety of humanity than saying "i don't like these inventors who make new things that make life easier for everyone, lets kill them" the roman empire literally killed people who invented new things because the emperors thought it would have put too many people out of work. we know now through economics that this is nonsense, and more productivity ends up not only making more for everyone but also making plenty of jobs to fill in what has been automated or made more efficient. there is easily going to be plenty of benefit for the future of this, you're trying to view it through the lens of "how does this benefit me or some rando on another continent right now". and your lack of knowing an answer doesn't mean there isn't benefit, but for some reason you've mistaken it as that.
- gambiting 3y ago
  >>hat's not true, the technological innovations of yesterday have brought more wealth, less poverty, and more overall benefit to the entirety of humanity than saying "i don't like these inventors who make new things that make life easier for everyone, lets kill them" That's sounds like trickle down economics to me - it benefits people in rich countries so it's fine, eventually it will make everyone better, right? A person in a country with no Starlink offering now cannot take clear pictures of the night sky because an American billionare wants to make even more money, but it's fine because "overall benefit to humanity" might be there? >>more productivity ends up not only making more for everyone but also making plenty of jobs to fill in what has been automated or made more efficient. I don't see how that applies here at all. I wouldn't have any problem with Starlink(or similar constellations) if they were limited in their impact only to countries they are offered in - but for obvious reasons that's not possible, they impact everyone on Earth equally even if not everyone on Earth can access the service. >>and your lack of knowing an answer doesn't mean there isn't benefit Oh but I have an answer - but I don't think the benefits outweight the disadvantages. If you want to entertain a thought exercise for a second - imagine if an American corporation decided to use technology to increase rainfall everywhere on earth, so that they can increase harvests in US. Only they get the profit from it, but it impacts everyone on Earth. Sure you could argue that it's great, there is more food, there are more jobs being created, surely everyone will benefit at some point, right? But if I live in a country that is impacted by it, then I really don't care about this argument - your benefit doesn't balance itself against the negatives for me.
  - stainablesteel 3y ago
    the trickle down argument isn't really catching with me, if someone makes a new, helpful, invention, they can proliferate it across the population. how that happens isn't really important. you're also saying benefit might be there, but its definitely there, and people want it. that's why they buy it. i think a better argument you made was that satellites in general act to interfere with astronomical work on earth. and i hadn't heard of this before (its not my realm) so i looked into it. the number of satellites in 2022 was ~8k, and about half are active. so the number musk is putting up there is definitely record breaking, and poses new levels of problems. he admits the trouble it might cause to astronomers and is trying to work on solutions such as a paint coating as well as data-level techniques to mitigate the problems. there are also a regulatory body, the ITU, that's looking to limit the frequency/bandwidths of what's used in satellites to help astronomers. none of this is perfect, but its acknowledged and with more technological development will likely come better compromises. links on where i got this info: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2223962-spacexs-starlink-satellites-are-interfering-with-astronomy-again/#:~:text=The%20astronomers%20were%20taking%20observations,and%20will%20adjust%20satellite https://www.newscientist.com/article/2223962-spacexs-starlin... https://earthsky.org/space/how-satellites-harm-astronomy-whats-being-done/ https://earthsky.org/space/how-satellites-harm-astronomy-wha... even despite that, i think people gain more from having internet than viewing the stars. and for organizations that seriously study the stars the best way around this seems to be to collect multiple shots when these satellites move. for amateur astronomers in their back yard, its probably not that important but they can use the same techniques. the rain example is an interesting thought experiment, i don't think most people would disagree that causing this kind of effect is a serious misuse of technology. and surely something like that would run into regulation or agreements? Of which it has. The groups trying to green the sahara receive compensation from the brazilian government to not green the entire sahara. why? because the minerals that blow across the atlantic, from the sahara, help fertilize the amazon rainforest. So there's functional examples of this kind of problem that have already been solved, I haven't lost faith in humanity over this.
- pmontra 3y ago
  > the roman empire literally killed people who invented new things because the emperors thought it would have put too many people out of work This is news to me. Could you give at least an example?
  - stainablesteel 3y ago
    i'll quote this quora question for you https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-Roman-emperor-who-was-shown-an-invention-and-had-the-inventor-executed https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-Roman-emperor-who-was-show... question: Who was the Roman emperor who was shown an invention and had the inventor executed? answer from andrew kirk: "I think you are thinking of Vespasian. An inventor came to him with a way to transport columns to the Capitol at a low cost—that is, he offered a labor-saving device. Vespasian turned him down, saying, “How will I feed my people?” It highlights that the point of government works was to create jobs and distribute money; efficiency was not a priority. Vespasian thought it would just throw people out of work and create civil unrest. This may be the main reason the Roman Empire never industrialized; they had plenty of inventions, but they didn’t put them into practice except in rare cases. The emperor was more interested in being the ultimate patron than advancing the economy, which was not really a concept anyway. You get money by taxing conquered lands, not by increasing efficiency. By the way, he rewarded the inventor—hint, hint, give out money, show gratitude, etc. to be the best and greatest patron. He didn’t kill him." so i was wrong about the killing part afaik
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    The following is an ancient Roman story that Romans told each other about Rome. It is doubtlessly fictional but reveals the perception Romans had about their own society: A man invented a new kind of glass that wouldn't shatter. He brought a challace made of this glass to the emperor for a demonstration, and threw it to the ground. Instead of shattering, it merely bent. Then he hammered it back into shape. The emperor was very impressed and asked if he had told anybody else the secret to making this glass. The inventor said he had not. Then the emperor ordered him killed on the spot. Pliny the Elder tells this story. He says he doesn't believe it actually happened, but that it was a popular story in Rome.
robertlagrant 3y ago
What's the thing you're objecting to? Elon Musk? If someone else did this would it be fine?
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  A government organization (I know, cringe) would be better, IMO. It's one thing for DirecTV to have 10 satellites providing TV and internet, and another to have a company with what will soon be exceeding 30 thousand. Why not make it a shared resource, like so many countries do with infrastructure projects?
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    The DirectTV satellites are in GEO, a particularly crowded orbit which does not naturally deorbit. 10 DirectTV satellites pose a higher risk of causing Kessler than 30,000 satellites at a 300 mile orbit.
  - minhazm 3y ago
    The federal government is incapable of efficiently allocating resources at scale, it's just the reality. Take a look at the defense industry. I have a friend who worked for a 3 letter agency, left and joined a private contractor and was assigned to the same team and project again but at 2x the pay. In practice the actual cost to the government is likely 3x factoring in the profits the contractor makes. Government pay scales also make it so that it makes no sense to work for the government if you're in a high demand / high pay field. That means the government tends to get the bottom of the barrel talent & then they end up massively overpaying for "butts-in-seats" contractors who do the same exact job at a way higher cost. That's why we have things like the FCC, FAA and DoD who oversee things like telecommunications and rocket launches hopefully without putting too much of a damper on innovation and progress while also protecting lives.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > The federal government is incapable of efficiently allocating resources at scale, it's just the reality. The US is the Land of Middlemen. Government are capable of doing so (see 'medical care in much of the rest of the world'). That doesn't specifically change that it is generally better for the "common good" that large infrastructure projects are often better in the hands of an entity that is not corporate profit-seeking at all costs. > That's why we have things like the FCC, FAA and DoD who oversee things like telecommunications and rocket launches SpaceX is using Tonga as a 'flag of convenience' for these launches, likely because Tonga has a far more lax regulatory oversight system - it's certainly not because of SpaceX's heavy connection to the Pacific island nation.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
You should focus your anger more on airplanes, they will benefit far fewer people (and spread global disease to the poor) and there are far more of them.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  Try to fly anywhere without talking to Air Traffic Control of that sovereign country. You will get shot down.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Planes are not as focused in their benefits and impact as Starlink is - people literally everywhere in every country of the world take flights, and the profits from these flights(usually) stay local. Starlink is affecting everyone in the world but only available to select countries and the profits are all flowing back to US.

krona 3y ago

There's lots of infrastructure which people gain nothing from directly. This sounds like an Anarcho-primitivist line of argument.

stainablesteel 3y ago

that's not true, the technological innovations of yesterday have brought more wealth, less poverty, and more overall benefit to the entirety of humanity than saying "i don't like these inventors who make new things that make life easier for everyone, lets kill them" the roman empire literally killed people who invented new things because the emperors thought it would have put too many people out of work. we know now through economics that this is nonsense, and more productivity ends up not only making more for everyone but also making plenty of jobs to fill in what has been automated or made more efficient. there is easily going to be plenty of benefit for the future of this, you're trying to view it through the lens of "how does this benefit me or some rando on another continent right now". and your lack of knowing an answer doesn't mean there isn't benefit, but for some reason you've mistaken it as that.

gambiting 3y ago
>>hat's not true, the technological innovations of yesterday have brought more wealth, less poverty, and more overall benefit to the entirety of humanity than saying "i don't like these inventors who make new things that make life easier for everyone, lets kill them" That's sounds like trickle down economics to me - it benefits people in rich countries so it's fine, eventually it will make everyone better, right? A person in a country with no Starlink offering now cannot take clear pictures of the night sky because an American billionare wants to make even more money, but it's fine because "overall benefit to humanity" might be there? >>more productivity ends up not only making more for everyone but also making plenty of jobs to fill in what has been automated or made more efficient. I don't see how that applies here at all. I wouldn't have any problem with Starlink(or similar constellations) if they were limited in their impact only to countries they are offered in - but for obvious reasons that's not possible, they impact everyone on Earth equally even if not everyone on Earth can access the service. >>and your lack of knowing an answer doesn't mean there isn't benefit Oh but I have an answer - but I don't think the benefits outweight the disadvantages. If you want to entertain a thought exercise for a second - imagine if an American corporation decided to use technology to increase rainfall everywhere on earth, so that they can increase harvests in US. Only they get the profit from it, but it impacts everyone on Earth. Sure you could argue that it's great, there is more food, there are more jobs being created, surely everyone will benefit at some point, right? But if I live in a country that is impacted by it, then I really don't care about this argument - your benefit doesn't balance itself against the negatives for me.
- stainablesteel 3y ago
  the trickle down argument isn't really catching with me, if someone makes a new, helpful, invention, they can proliferate it across the population. how that happens isn't really important. you're also saying benefit might be there, but its definitely there, and people want it. that's why they buy it. i think a better argument you made was that satellites in general act to interfere with astronomical work on earth. and i hadn't heard of this before (its not my realm) so i looked into it. the number of satellites in 2022 was ~8k, and about half are active. so the number musk is putting up there is definitely record breaking, and poses new levels of problems. he admits the trouble it might cause to astronomers and is trying to work on solutions such as a paint coating as well as data-level techniques to mitigate the problems. there are also a regulatory body, the ITU, that's looking to limit the frequency/bandwidths of what's used in satellites to help astronomers. none of this is perfect, but its acknowledged and with more technological development will likely come better compromises. links on where i got this info: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2223962-spacexs-starlink-satellites-are-interfering-with-astronomy-again/#:~:text=The%20astronomers%20were%20taking%20observations,and%20will%20adjust%20satellite https://www.newscientist.com/article/2223962-spacexs-starlin... https://earthsky.org/space/how-satellites-harm-astronomy-whats-being-done/ https://earthsky.org/space/how-satellites-harm-astronomy-wha... even despite that, i think people gain more from having internet than viewing the stars. and for organizations that seriously study the stars the best way around this seems to be to collect multiple shots when these satellites move. for amateur astronomers in their back yard, its probably not that important but they can use the same techniques. the rain example is an interesting thought experiment, i don't think most people would disagree that causing this kind of effect is a serious misuse of technology. and surely something like that would run into regulation or agreements? Of which it has. The groups trying to green the sahara receive compensation from the brazilian government to not green the entire sahara. why? because the minerals that blow across the atlantic, from the sahara, help fertilize the amazon rainforest. So there's functional examples of this kind of problem that have already been solved, I haven't lost faith in humanity over this.
pmontra 3y ago
> the roman empire literally killed people who invented new things because the emperors thought it would have put too many people out of work This is news to me. Could you give at least an example?
- stainablesteel 3y ago
  i'll quote this quora question for you https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-Roman-emperor-who-was-shown-an-invention-and-had-the-inventor-executed https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-Roman-emperor-who-was-show... question: Who was the Roman emperor who was shown an invention and had the inventor executed? answer from andrew kirk: "I think you are thinking of Vespasian. An inventor came to him with a way to transport columns to the Capitol at a low cost—that is, he offered a labor-saving device. Vespasian turned him down, saying, “How will I feed my people?” It highlights that the point of government works was to create jobs and distribute money; efficiency was not a priority. Vespasian thought it would just throw people out of work and create civil unrest. This may be the main reason the Roman Empire never industrialized; they had plenty of inventions, but they didn’t put them into practice except in rare cases. The emperor was more interested in being the ultimate patron than advancing the economy, which was not really a concept anyway. You get money by taxing conquered lands, not by increasing efficiency. By the way, he rewarded the inventor—hint, hint, give out money, show gratitude, etc. to be the best and greatest patron. He didn’t kill him." so i was wrong about the killing part afaik
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  The following is an ancient Roman story that Romans told each other about Rome. It is doubtlessly fictional but reveals the perception Romans had about their own society: A man invented a new kind of glass that wouldn't shatter. He brought a challace made of this glass to the emperor for a demonstration, and threw it to the ground. Instead of shattering, it merely bent. Then he hammered it back into shape. The emperor was very impressed and asked if he had told anybody else the secret to making this glass. The inventor said he had not. Then the emperor ordered him killed on the spot. Pliny the Elder tells this story. He says he doesn't believe it actually happened, but that it was a popular story in Rome.

robertlagrant 3y ago

What's the thing you're objecting to? Elon Musk? If someone else did this would it be fine?

FireBeyond 3y ago
A government organization (I know, cringe) would be better, IMO. It's one thing for DirecTV to have 10 satellites providing TV and internet, and another to have a company with what will soon be exceeding 30 thousand. Why not make it a shared resource, like so many countries do with infrastructure projects?
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The DirectTV satellites are in GEO, a particularly crowded orbit which does not naturally deorbit. 10 DirectTV satellites pose a higher risk of causing Kessler than 30,000 satellites at a 300 mile orbit.
- minhazm 3y ago
  The federal government is incapable of efficiently allocating resources at scale, it's just the reality. Take a look at the defense industry. I have a friend who worked for a 3 letter agency, left and joined a private contractor and was assigned to the same team and project again but at 2x the pay. In practice the actual cost to the government is likely 3x factoring in the profits the contractor makes. Government pay scales also make it so that it makes no sense to work for the government if you're in a high demand / high pay field. That means the government tends to get the bottom of the barrel talent & then they end up massively overpaying for "butts-in-seats" contractors who do the same exact job at a way higher cost. That's why we have things like the FCC, FAA and DoD who oversee things like telecommunications and rocket launches hopefully without putting too much of a damper on innovation and progress while also protecting lives.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > The federal government is incapable of efficiently allocating resources at scale, it's just the reality. The US is the Land of Middlemen. Government are capable of doing so (see 'medical care in much of the rest of the world'). That doesn't specifically change that it is generally better for the "common good" that large infrastructure projects are often better in the hands of an entity that is not corporate profit-seeking at all costs. > That's why we have things like the FCC, FAA and DoD who oversee things like telecommunications and rocket launches SpaceX is using Tonga as a 'flag of convenience' for these launches, likely because Tonga has a far more lax regulatory oversight system - it's certainly not because of SpaceX's heavy connection to the Pacific island nation.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

You should focus your anger more on airplanes, they will benefit far fewer people (and spread global disease to the poor) and there are far more of them.

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
Try to fly anywhere without talking to Air Traffic Control of that sovereign country. You will get shot down.
gambiting 3y ago
Planes are not as focused in their benefits and impact as Starlink is - people literally everywhere in every country of the world take flights, and the profits from these flights(usually) stay local. Starlink is affecting everyone in the world but only available to select countries and the profits are all flowing back to US.