3 ms·
How much environmental destruction would you consider unacceptable for an endeavour like Starship? How do you justify that amount of environmental destruction
by Teever 2y ago
How much environmental destruction would you consider unacceptable for an endeavour like Starship?
How do you justify that amount of environmental destruction by a single organization like SpaceX in context of the tragedy of the commons?
- ryan93 2y agoNatural erosion destroys orders of magnitude more wetland than spacex.
- squigz 2y agoYeah and the key word there is "natural"
- inglor_cz 2y agoNot for me. If natural outcomes of type X and frequency Y are tolerable to us and we don't fight them, it indicates that this sort of outcome should be tolerable in general.
- serf 2y agothe method of action is an important variable as well. the wildlife of a wetlands that undergoes a drought has a chance to spring back once reintroduced to water. the wildlife of a wetlands that is chemically poisoned will not spring back to life without either lots of time or remediation efforts. 'on the box' both situations look the same : no wildlife -- but they're not. The reasons matter, more data than just statistical prevalence is needed here in order to assess the damage realistically in the attempt at scoring man-made disaster against natural disaster.
- inglor_cz 2y agoThis is a good correction, thank you. Yes, modality matters.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoHow much is an interesting question because it is difficult to quantify - There is no "unit" for ecological destruction. I said above, i think it is worth paving over the entire estuary, which is about 2 square miles. If I were to put an upper limit on it, it would probably be 100x that. As for justification, I think that the common value of the local habitat is miniscule, and the common value of SpaceX is immense. some small number of people use the wild refuge for bird watching and the like, meanwhile SpaceX internet provides millions of people access to education, telemedicine, employment, and/or entertainment. Further development will help advance global Astronomy and encourage space exploration.
- Teever 2y agoYou say this as if the refuge is a thing that lives in isolation and isn't connected to the broader environment in which it exists. Do you think that it is possible that the destruction of some distant ecological system could destroy this one? And by extension do you think that it is possible that the destruction of this system could destroy another one?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI have no misconception of isolation. I studied postgraduate marine biology before following the money into biotech, and have about a dozen friends in state environmental agencies. There would be some consequences, but within limits. The earth wouldnt stop spinning and explode. There would likely be some marginal impact to migratory birds and local fishery, but it wouldn't cause mountainous in Tibet to go extinct or anything like that. Anyways, Costal wetlands usually change constantly under natural conditions. Most of our static wetlands are already extremely unnatural, because cities and states have gone to great lengths to modify them in some ways and keep them from changing. They are about as natural as central park or a zoo.
- Teever 2y agoIs a tragedy of the commons scenario possible here?