| ▲ | Legend2440 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is a tradeoff we have to make with infrastructure and development in general. How do you balance human needs with pristine nature? Do we put up long-distance power lines and wind farms even though they ruin the views? Do you tear down a forest to put up farmlands and suburbs? Do you build a dam to provide water for irrigation, even though it kills the fish and floods a valley? Satellites are actually easier than most of those tradeoffs, because nothing lives in space and there's no nature to destroy. It only affects us. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | dgellow an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> How do you balance human needs with pristine nature? How about we set a limit on how many satellites? That’s exactly how to balance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | croes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They hinder the view on asteroids coming our way. The purpose of most of these satellites is internet access where we already have less limited possibilities with less maintenance costs like constant replacement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||