3 ms·

If you paid attention, "this time" and also the "other hundred million times" are true, not false. We're massively more connected than ever before. Homeless p

If you paid attention, "this time" and also the "other hundred million times" are true, not false. We're massively more connected than ever before. Homeless people in the third world have phones now. They should be able to get on the internet too.

palata 2y ago
Starlink is not there to bring Internet in places that don't have it. It's here to bring fast Internet in places that already have slow Internet. The question is: how fast an Internet connection do we need? Do we really need to swipe 4k videos on social network, or to download 50G of docker containers for every build? I don't think so.
- FredPret 2y ago
  Is there some maximum level of development you want? And what is that level, and why? Where do you want to draw the line? The wheel, fire, hand tools, struggling to survive in the middle ages, slow internet, fast internet? I say there is no line.
  - palata 2y ago
    > I say there is no line. I say there is one: survival. Not only of our species, but of the others, too. We're failing at that, and the vast majority of the technology that got developed in the last decades is making things worse.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      OK, but I don’t think tech progress = dead ecosystem. In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. We use less land than we would’ve using 1800’s farming techniques, for instance. Nuclear is cleaner than coal. Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech.
      - palata 2y ago
        I feel like I almost agree with everything you say, except that I systematically conclude the exact opposite. You seem to keep stopping half-way through every single point you mention: > In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. Newer tech is cleaner if you ignore rebound effect. It's absolutely certain that in history, new tech has always resulted in more energy use, which is the exact opposite of "cleaner". > Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Everybody having more money means that they can consume more. Do you know who goes on holiday by plane? Those who have more money. It's absolutely clear that those who have more money pollute more, even if they feel good because they drive a Tesla (which is all but environmentally-friendly). > Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. Okay, it is "better" by many metrics. But certainly not by the environmental one. We are talking about the environmental impact here, right? Starlink is technically impressive, but it doesn't mean we should do it. It's just part of the problem, and we don't need it. > In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Surely? It's all but sure. You don't even say precisely what you are talking about: do you account for the cables that are already out there and work perfectly fine? Or do you just consider the cost of bringing fiber to your tent in the middle of the desert? Maybe Starlink is better for that, but we don't need it. In fact we just can't afford it, at this point. > Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech. This is preposterous. With our current understanding of physics, more tech will certainly not help. We would need a breakthrough that is akin to wishing for a miracle. You may as well wait for Jesus to come back. But there is more: our society depends on fossil fuels. But not only there is no serious way to replace them entirely (meaning that we cannot save the climate/biodiversity without fundamentally changing society), but they are limited and will become a problem in the next few decades (meaning that society will fundamentally change, whether we want it or not). You can wait for a miracle, or face the truth: we need to prepare for a world with (much) less energy. And in that world, there is no place for fiber in your tent in the desert.
bmitc 2y ago
> We're massively more connected than ever before. In a certain electronic sense, yes, but emotionally and socially, we are not more connected than ever before. So like I said, this utopian promise of the Internet connecting and liberating and educating us has not happened. In fact, it's the opposite that has happened.
- oh_my_goodness 2y ago
  Yeah, this. And people ignoring this point or actively downvoting it ... that's not just puzzling it's symptomatic. The capitalism I'm fine with, though we need the New Deal version to come back. But universal isolation and depression, or feeling like we live in a factory farm, no.

palata 2y ago

Starlink is not there to bring Internet in places that don't have it. It's here to bring fast Internet in places that already have slow Internet. The question is: how fast an Internet connection do we need? Do we really need to swipe 4k videos on social network, or to download 50G of docker containers for every build? I don't think so.

FredPret 2y ago
Is there some maximum level of development you want? And what is that level, and why? Where do you want to draw the line? The wheel, fire, hand tools, struggling to survive in the middle ages, slow internet, fast internet? I say there is no line.
- palata 2y ago
  > I say there is no line. I say there is one: survival. Not only of our species, but of the others, too. We're failing at that, and the vast majority of the technology that got developed in the last decades is making things worse.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    OK, but I don’t think tech progress = dead ecosystem. In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. We use less land than we would’ve using 1800’s farming techniques, for instance. Nuclear is cleaner than coal. Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech.
    - palata 2y ago
      I feel like I almost agree with everything you say, except that I systematically conclude the exact opposite. You seem to keep stopping half-way through every single point you mention: > In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. Newer tech is cleaner if you ignore rebound effect. It's absolutely certain that in history, new tech has always resulted in more energy use, which is the exact opposite of "cleaner". > Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Everybody having more money means that they can consume more. Do you know who goes on holiday by plane? Those who have more money. It's absolutely clear that those who have more money pollute more, even if they feel good because they drive a Tesla (which is all but environmentally-friendly). > Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. Okay, it is "better" by many metrics. But certainly not by the environmental one. We are talking about the environmental impact here, right? Starlink is technically impressive, but it doesn't mean we should do it. It's just part of the problem, and we don't need it. > In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Surely? It's all but sure. You don't even say precisely what you are talking about: do you account for the cables that are already out there and work perfectly fine? Or do you just consider the cost of bringing fiber to your tent in the middle of the desert? Maybe Starlink is better for that, but we don't need it. In fact we just can't afford it, at this point. > Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech. This is preposterous. With our current understanding of physics, more tech will certainly not help. We would need a breakthrough that is akin to wishing for a miracle. You may as well wait for Jesus to come back. But there is more: our society depends on fossil fuels. But not only there is no serious way to replace them entirely (meaning that we cannot save the climate/biodiversity without fundamentally changing society), but they are limited and will become a problem in the next few decades (meaning that society will fundamentally change, whether we want it or not). You can wait for a miracle, or face the truth: we need to prepare for a world with (much) less energy. And in that world, there is no place for fiber in your tent in the desert.

bmitc 2y ago

> We're massively more connected than ever before. In a certain electronic sense, yes, but emotionally and socially, we are not more connected than ever before. So like I said, this utopian promise of the Internet connecting and liberating and educating us has not happened. In fact, it's the opposite that has happened.

oh_my_goodness 2y ago
Yeah, this. And people ignoring this point or actively downvoting it ... that's not just puzzling it's symptomatic. The capitalism I'm fine with, though we need the New Deal version to come back. But universal isolation and depression, or feeling like we live in a factory farm, no.