Sometimes it seems like some people have a pathological need to be a doomer about any human activity.
See also: "Kessler syndrome" doomerism about LEO satellites, the debris of which would only be a concern for a few years.
See also: "Kessler syndrome" doomerism about LEO satellites, the debris of which would only be a concern for a few years.
Kessler syndrome is even greatly misunderstood because of movies like Gravity. People think of it as one satellite getting kicked over and then there's a sudden chain reaction of satellite after satellite being destroyed in the time span of hours/days. When in fact it's likely that Kessler syndrome is probably already happening, but it's hard to tell.
The solution is to pass new laws on satellite disposal so the problem doesn't get worse and over time figure out methods to dispose of what's up there. The most important things to get rid of are the very large debris as those can act as nexuses for further debris generation as they're "worn away" by other particulate dust debris and micrometeorites.
Unless the problem is that those things are happening, in which case the solution is to put up blockers...
If the end result of your thinking is "this has too many bad effects so we can never do this entire category of thing" then you've gone off the cliff. The solution is to fix the bad side effects while continuing the beneficial thing rather than saying you can't do anything at all.
The article raises concerns and calls for more studies.
There is value in investigating the downside of technology because it helps us address problems before they occur. Of the the more famous modern example is CFCs and The Montreal Protocol. There was a genuine risk to all life on earth found via similar science, we got together and agreed on a solution plus we still have whipped cream in a can and refrigerators.
There is a fundamental difference between doomerism and investigating potential risk. Of course we should avoid doomerism but saying “hey guys this might be an issue let’s think about it a bit” is an important part of technological advancement.
I suspect that the reason stuff like this gets traction is because of the current crop of satellite visualizations. Most of them make it look like Earth is absolutely blanketed in satellites. But that's primarily a pixel size limitation - it's not possible to show how small satellites actually are in a reasonably sized image.
If you think about it logically - there are a couple thousand cars in orbit: what percent of the surface does that cover? Not much - that doesn't even cover much of a 2nd tier city. And they have very predictable trajectories.
In short, yes - it's theoretically possible. But not a realistic concern. Especially with current launch prices. One of the only reasons Starlink is so big is because SpaceX gets to launch at cost instead of at market price.
(I trace it all back to Jurassic park. It trained an entire generation to be afraid of technology.)
Apparently not enough, given where we're headed.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Do you have some specific refutation to the arguments made in this article? Otherwise, it's unclear what the value of your comment is - you could literally make it about any claim of any side effect of any technology!
> You could literally make it about any claim of any side effect of any technology!
Agreed.
Edit: after RTFA, I definitely get how both OP’s and my comment could be seen as unnecessary.