It would be relevant compare SpaceX's environmental damage to that of any other big company.
Given the tons of CO2 they emit I’m guessing a lot!
Yeah, but actual numbers would be nice.
Wiping out wildlife is a small price to pay so that one day we might be able to rocket to barren, lifeless worlds that are totally uninhabitable.
So hard to tell if this is sarcastic.
Well done!
You get the snark award of the day.
Some day this world will be barren and lifeless and totally uninhabitable. I'm not defending Space X, but sooner or later we'll need to leave. I wouldn't be quite that dismissive of the need to get out there, but that's not as urgent as the environment.
Some day this world will be barren and lifeless and totally uninhabitable.
"Some day" is likely to be several hundred million years, if not a billion years from now. That is hundreds and hundreds of times longer than our species has existed. To say that's not as urgent as the environment is a pretty significant understatement. In fact, I'd say that threat is about as far from urgent as one could imagine.
There's a mass extension event every 100 million years.
The last mass extinction (excluding the current, ongoing mass extinction) that occurred approximately 66 million years ago, resulted in the extinction of three quarters of all plant and animal species and wiped out all non-avian dinosaurs, and yet the Earth then was still more hospitable to life than any other planet we know of.
mass extinction event ≠ barren and lifeless. We have a mass extinction event going on Right now because of human impact, the anthropocene.
That's a best case scenario. A gamma ray burst could hit the planet tomorrow and we're all gone. A madman with a bunch of nukes could trigger a nuclear winter. A massive volcano could darken the skies for years - wouldn't be the first time. I'd like to see some progress just in case.
When you're Elon Musk, wiping out wildlife isn't a price to pay, it's a spectator sport.
He's not a big game hunter because you can't kill enough animals at one time that way.
While I see the sarcasm, that statement is really pretty accurate. I mean, this rocket is probably the most important thing humans are doing right now. I can't think of a higher priority project.
I can't think of a higher priority project.
I can't think of how it would be a priority at all.
A reusable rocket? It represents entering a new phase of humanity.
It's a much more significant leap into space than the moon landing, because it greatly improves our access to space. If this thing works, if we end up with a working reusable rocket, it doesn't just mean more satellites, or more astronauts, it means you and I can start going to space in our lifetime. It means people will start having jobs in space. It means we can finally start reaching out in a real way.
It means we can finally start reaching out in a real way.
I personally don't consider that to be a priority.
Well I don't know what to tell you. Feel free to dream bigger?
I'm not necessarily opposed to having grand, long term ambitions, but I just don't see how something like that could be considered a priority. When I think of a priority, I think of some immediate need. I don't see space exploration as a necessity. Again, I'm not against it, necessarily, but I think preserving this planet's biosphere should absolutely be considered the priority. After all, the Earth is the only human supporting habitat known to exist in the universe.
Again, I'm not against it, necessarily, but I think preserving this planet's biosphere should absolutely be considered the priority. After all, the Earth is the only human supporting habitat known to exist in the universe.
I agree completely. But I'm also of the opinion that living in space is how we'll develop those technologies we need to survive on earth, maybe it's the only way.
The problem is that while we could develop those technologies on earth, we aren't, not fast enough. But living in space would force us to develop those technologies, and that's what we need. Solar power is a great example, photovoltaics were a very niche form of power generation, hardly utilized at all. But it was necessary in spacecrafts, it was the only thing that made sense (well, sometimes nuclear made sense too, but not my point). As a result, a lot of solar research and development was done by NASA and other contractors for the space program, and now we have panels in our roofs today. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, and here's why: bringing things to space is expensive, so it's better to reuse, recycle, repurpose and repair whenever possible. Long term facilities in space will naturally want to reduce costs to a minimum whenever possible, and that means learning how to operate in a way that reuses and repurposes waste, rather than discarding it. All the CO2 generated, that can be reprocessed into useful carbon and vital oxygen. But it won't stop there, we'll want to repurpose every bit of waste we possibly can, creating totally closed-loop environments, the absolute pinnacle of sustainability.
And of course one of the great things about a closed loop environment is that it doesn't pollute, it hardly effects the environment around it at all. And even with reusable rockets, anything we can build in space, will still be cheaper to build here on earth. And once we know how to live in a closed loop because space forced us to, we'll have everything we need to do it here on earth because we want to.
Also we'll be able to travel the solar system, so that's super cool. Space is cool.
I think the best way to achieve sustainability is probably through simplification, rather than relying on technology of ever increasing complexity. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use any form of complex technology, but I think we implement the complex technology more strategically. I think we should utilize more complex technology where necessary but simplify where possible. I think we should try to live more within the bounds of our ecosystem and become more connected to it and its natural cycles, instead of becoming more disconnected from it.
I think the best way to achieve sustainability is probably through simplification, rather than relying on technology of ever increasing complexity. ... but simplify where possible
Well I mean, that's what we're doing right now, but it clearly isn't enough. "Simplify where possible" is a good thought, but all too often people decide, no, it's not possible right now. Given a choice, people tend to take the easier path, not the more responsible path. That's the benefit of living in space, it takes that choice away
And if you want people to significantly simplify, well that's a real uphill battle, especially if it's more economical in the short term to do something else. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it's an approach we've been trying since the 80s, and individuals, companies and governments all naturally push back against it.
Besides, even before we had all the tech we do now, we still couldn't live sustainably. We hunted the mammoth and the giant ground sloths to extinction. We've been over fishing and over logging since we can remember. New need to figure out how to live sustainably, it never came naturally.
And if you want people to significantly simplify, well that's a real uphill battle
Well, I can't disagree with you there. Few people will simplify or reduce their consumption or their use of resources willingly. You're right, they're going to have to be forced, somehow. But, I don't think space is going to be the thing that forces them, I think it will be some kind of major collapse. Regardless, I don't think anything is going to stop people from continuing to do profound, irreparable damage to the environment anytime soon. I expect that to continue for the foreseeable future.
But, I don't think space is going to be the thing that forces them, I think it will be some kind of major collapse.
Yeah, well I can't predict the future, so of course I can't say for sure. But I sure hope that we get to living in space before there's some major collapse. I would like to see society not fall apart spectacularly. I guess that's why I'm so hyped for reusable rockets, it's a possible path to sustainability that doesn't require a collapse, and that's the future I want.
Let me let you in on a little secret, because the title implies otherwise - wildlife protection was never a priority, and will never become one, to any company under capitalism, but especially to a company like that.
With the Chevron case, we likely won't see any additional protections coming either.
And I'm sure that isn't the only case either..
There is always this framing that we are now getting fucked over... Which is disingenuous since peasants are always getting fucked over.
There's currently a hurricane incoming from the Gulf of Mexico, it'll be interesting to compare the damage it causes to the damage that would have been caused by a regular rocket launch.
Ultimately, these rocket operations need to be done somewhere. Due to their nature that "somewhere" has a lot of restrictions on it. It needs to be as far south as practical (to benefit from Earth's rotation), it needs to be somewhere far from human habitation for safety and sonic reasons, and the path to the west needs to be clear of stuff that could be damaged by falling debris. For political reasons it needs to be in the United States. All these competing criteria generally mean it's going to have to be on a southern coastline where there's currently wilderness.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.