|
|
|
|
|
by fighterpilot
1874 days ago
|
|
> selling internet to people in wealthy countries in areas without good local internet options Even if I grant you that it's not going to be about supplying internet to poorer countries, this reason alone is sufficient. Depriving rural communities of internet over such a small negative externality is a non-starter. > literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it Poland emits significant amounts of carbon pollution, which impacts me, and I have no say in it. Some negative externalities in the global commons is inevitable. You, personally, are contributing to that. Your weather and GPS satellites are contributing to it. The solution therefore can't be a puritanical "I will not allow any global externalities whatsoever.". It's an impractical non-starter and a rule that nobody anywhere follows nor should
they try to follow it. |
|
So of course it isn't about not allowing any global externalities - but this one feels incredibly lopsided. GPS benefits everyone, at a very low externality cost. Starlink benefits the lucky wealthy few(and I am talking about the subscribers here, not just the owners), at an absolutely huge externality cost. Is it worth it? You say that it is, I don't - I don't know where the line is here, but I don't think it's where Elon Musk thinks it is.