2 ms·

Misanthropes [1] look at human civilization as a disease. Look instead at what we've accomplished. Think about the hard steps to life and intelligent life. Ab

Misanthropes [1] look at human civilization as a disease. Look instead at what we've accomplished. Think about the hard steps to life and intelligent life. About how silent the universe appears. Consider then how we're taking leaps towards making the cold and bleak universe self-aware. We are a part of evolution. What would be tragic would be for this earth to simply boil away. Its life giving gasses and materials to vanish, unused, and life to be forgotten. Return to an unthinking rock. [1] Maybe it's uncharitable to label you as a misanthrope, but looking broadly at this behavior in general.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
I think it's fair to be concerned about what we're losing without being labeled as a Misanthrope. I think the progress, in its entirety, is worth it, but I'm still a little sad at the night sky having even more artificial things that take attention away from the stars. Looking at the night sky as a child seemed timeless to me, and that's no longer the case.
- kortilla 2y ago
  You can’t see Starlink satellites in the night sky except shortly after sunset or before sunrise when they are still in daylight and you aren’t. They don’t produce visible light on their own. The night sky will be exactly the same otherwise so you’re doing a lot of handwringing over nothing. Real astronomers are complaining about many other things. Streaking in long exposures and noise in other spectrums. But that’s not relevant to anyone looking at the sky with the naked eye or an amateur telescope.
carstenhag 2y ago
I'm sort of undecided here. Yeah it's great for some use cases & many people, we should probably do it, seems worth it. But also, before having 40k thingies on the orbit that will decay/break within years, why not think of a better strategy or the implications of this? We shouldn't repeat all the mistakes we have made in the past.
- nradov 2y ago
  A lot of smart people have been trying to think of a better strategy for decades. This appears to be the best we can do within our current understanding of physics. A better strategy would require antigravity technology or faster than light communications or something similarly unlikely.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

I think it's fair to be concerned about what we're losing without being labeled as a Misanthrope. I think the progress, in its entirety, is worth it, but I'm still a little sad at the night sky having even more artificial things that take attention away from the stars. Looking at the night sky as a child seemed timeless to me, and that's no longer the case.

kortilla 2y ago
You can’t see Starlink satellites in the night sky except shortly after sunset or before sunrise when they are still in daylight and you aren’t. They don’t produce visible light on their own. The night sky will be exactly the same otherwise so you’re doing a lot of handwringing over nothing. Real astronomers are complaining about many other things. Streaking in long exposures and noise in other spectrums. But that’s not relevant to anyone looking at the sky with the naked eye or an amateur telescope.

carstenhag 2y ago

I'm sort of undecided here. Yeah it's great for some use cases & many people, we should probably do it, seems worth it. But also, before having 40k thingies on the orbit that will decay/break within years, why not think of a better strategy or the implications of this? We shouldn't repeat all the mistakes we have made in the past.

nradov 2y ago
A lot of smart people have been trying to think of a better strategy for decades. This appears to be the best we can do within our current understanding of physics. A better strategy would require antigravity technology or faster than light communications or something similarly unlikely.