[mac01021]

If it's going to harm wildlife, the technology should be forbidden, without qualification or exception.

If not, I don't feel the need for faster speeds than what I get, but I would be very interested in getting more data per month at the same (or lower) monthly price. If a cellular provider could give me internet connectivity (LTE speeds) at a price of something like $1 per gigabyte I would drop my household's cable service in favor of that right away.

[sneak]

By that logic, we shouldn’t build cities or buildings. I am pretty sure most people do not agree with this position.

[mac01021]

You're right, I articulated my position extremely poorly. The needs of people and civilization should often win out over the needs of wildlife. But almost always in a way that sacrifices only wildlife within a confined spatial region and almost never in a way that threatens an entire species.

If there are species living around the globe that might not be able to continue their current role in the global ecosystem in a world where 5G is pervasive, then we should not allow the use of 5G in the vast majority of the world. The consequences, for humans, via trophic cascade or whatever, would be extremely uncertain. Are the benefits of 5G really compelling enough to brave them? Certainly they are not compelling enough to me.

[EB66]

Not quite.

Cities and buildings provide tremendous benefits. These benefits, presumably, outweigh the costs of harming wildlife to construct them.

The OP is arguing that the benefits of 5G are objectively minor and therefore not worth the cost of causing mass harm to a broad swath of wildlife.

I agree with the OP's position -- I will gladly keep my ~50Mbit 4G speeds if it means we will prevent the collapse of various insect populations.

[saagarjha]

Yeah, I feel that "without qualification or exception" is not a tenable position. We harm wildlife all the time: ideally, we don't excessively harm wildlife (where "excessive" is a constantly evolving standard).