[josefresco]

It is very much a valid argument. SpaceX has been working on this issue for years.

https://theconversation.com/a-million-new-spacex-satellites-...

FTA: "SpaceX has done a lot of engineering work to make its Starlink satellites fainter. They are still too bright for research astronomy, but thanks to new coatings, their brightness has not increased dramatically even as SpaceX has launched larger and larger satellites."

[skeledrew]

I acknowledge there's an issue here, but I don't think it makes sense to label it "pollution". When something is polluted it generally means using it can lead to some form of harm, directly or indirectly. I fail to see how confusing satellites for stars stars causes harm, per se (though of course it would suck to be an astronomer).

[akarlsten]

Starlink constellations will lead to a world where there is absolutely nowhere you can go where you cant see man-made junk. No truly pristine wilderness anywhere without being able to see formations of glowing dots helping "off-grid" idiots stream Netflix. It's spiritually harmful if nothing else.

Also who said pollution has to be harmful? Light pollution is a thing, and this is the same class of problem.

Why dont they dip the satellites in vantablack to make them truly invisible?

[skeledrew]

There are those who would disagree on the existence of a "spirit", and so immediately invalidate that argument.

Light pollution is borderline, but actually acceptable is it does cause harm. It disrupts sleep quality and sleeping patterns, also generally affecting plants and animals negatively.

[richwater]

You argument seems to hinge on Starlink not being a massive improvement to how non-broadband connected folk get internet. Your crusade against "offgrid" idiots is intentionally dense as it ignores the millions of people who will be able to access the internet.

[robotresearcher]

You don’t see the harm, but it would suck to be an astronomer?