2 ms·
> This seems bad e.g., Cianide seems bad, but it won't kill you if the relative volumes are small. tl;dr: You haven't characterized the denominator.
by caminante 1y ago
> This seems bad
e.g., Cianide seems bad, but it won't kill you if the relative volumes are small.
tl;dr: You haven't characterized the denominator.
- tmvphil 1y agoSee my edit. Just one starcloud would represent an increase in a risk factor of over 300 c.f. status quo. Then multiply that by the number of starclouds you think would be deployed.
- caminante 1y agoYou still keep playing with the numerator. > increase in a risk factor of over 300 Even with a numerator-only view, I suspect it's not fair to characterize the "risk factor" as going up 300x. There's a lot more nuance about orbits in space.
- tmvphil 1y agoTell me the nuance then. If people have concerns about Kessler syndrome at the starlink scale then why wouldn't something literally 1000x bigger be even more concerning.
- caminante 1y agoI already did. Your reply/edit merely repeated your prior observation. Getting back to the point: You literally claimed that one of these would "inevitabl[y]" trigger a Kessler effect with no proof. > something literally 1000x bigger be even more concerning. Again, this isn't convincing if you don't have the denominator/context. Think about it: you still can't answer how many of these are needed to trigger the Kessler effect. BTW, "increase by a FACTOR of about 300" != "increase in a RISK FACTOR of over 300"
- tmvphil 1y agoI know this in the same way that even though I don't know the exact credence to assign the probability of particular bad effects from global warming, I can confidently say that an increase by a factor of 1000 of the CO2 emissions would be a bad thing. This is not because I have done a simulation, but instead my beliefs are based on the assumption that while concerned experts might be wrong in the details, they are probably not wrong with a gap of 3 orders of magnitude.