Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ARobotKneltInTheLane t1_j9przct wrote

Reply to comment by CrustalTrudger in What will be the environmental impact of de-orbiting 42,000 Starlink satellites every five years? (Explanation in post) by OvidPerl

Isn't it funny that "stop that till we know exactly how much harm it does" is never really pursued as a policy option

More research is needed! the scientists cry as the entrepreneurs do whatever they like

And of course when what they are doing is proven deadly & regulated out of feasibility, they will have new unproven methods to turn to

36

cyberentomology t1_j9s63wb wrote

Because there will never be enough research to satisfy someone who doesn’t understand that you can’t prove a negative.

18

ARobotKneltInTheLane t1_j9sj8ks wrote

I don't follow perfectly. Are you saying entrepreneurs don't have time to wait to find out that today's cockamamie scheme for turning $1 into $2 does "no harm"?

−1

Alblaka t1_j9sueww wrote

Seems more like they're implying that entrepreneurs will not accept anything that isn't straight up proving a negative. Which is logically impossible. Thus whatever "this is possibly bad" scientists come up with, will end up dismissed because it's not "This is 100% certainty bad".

4

ARobotKneltInTheLane t1_j9swb06 wrote

Ah I see! I felt confusion cos for sure we have pretty conclusive evidence of the deep harm of many industrial processes but what you're saying makes sense

0