How much environmental destruction would you consider unacceptable for an endeavour like Starship?
How do you justify that amount of environmental destruction by a single organization like SpaceX in context of the tragedy of the commons?
How do you justify that amount of environmental destruction by a single organization like SpaceX in context of the tragedy of the commons?
If I were to put an upper limit on it, it would probably be 100x that.
As for justification, I think that the common value of the local habitat is miniscule, and the common value of SpaceX is immense.
some small number of people use the wild refuge for bird watching and the like, meanwhile SpaceX internet provides millions of people access to education, telemedicine, employment, and/or entertainment. Further development will help advance global Astronomy and encourage space exploration.
Do you think that it is possible that the destruction of some distant ecological system could destroy this one? And by extension do you think that it is possible that the destruction of this system could destroy another one?
There would be some consequences, but within limits. The earth wouldnt stop spinning and explode. There would likely be some marginal impact to migratory birds and local fishery, but it wouldn't cause mountainous in Tibet to go extinct or anything like that.
Anyways, Costal wetlands usually change constantly under natural conditions. Most of our static wetlands are already extremely unnatural, because cities and states have gone to great lengths to modify them in some ways and keep them from changing. They are about as natural as central park or a zoo.
I see it the same way as if someone was holding up building a hospital because of an anthill, while children died waiting.
the wildlife of a wetlands that undergoes a drought has a chance to spring back once reintroduced to water.
the wildlife of a wetlands that is chemically poisoned will not spring back to life without either lots of time or remediation efforts.
'on the box' both situations look the same : no wildlife -- but they're not.
The reasons matter, more data than just statistical prevalence is needed here in order to assess the damage realistically in the attempt at scoring man-made disaster against natural disaster.