I'm pretty sure if a global vote was held on the question of "Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched so you have the option of paying a US company for broadband anywhere in the world?", the vote outcome would be a firm 'No'.
People can be trusted a lot more in the second category, which is generally also their right. If they have valid concerns that are getting dismissed, they're not gonna like talking to you.
I know personally that when I chose from menus at restaurants I am hilariously bad at picking what I like, while my wife is consistently better at choosing what I like.
But yes, they're not big enough to cause a "space junk preventing space travel" kind of scenario.
* 3 billion people don't care because they don't use the internet
* 7 billion people don't care because they wouldn't be able to afford it anyway
* 7 billion people don't care because the question doesn't make much sense to them nor do they really understand what it is about
* 4 billion people likely won't participate because voting is not an activity they are familiar with and/or is not something they desire to participate in.
Direct democracy also has a pretty bad track record in producing just, principled, and reasoned results.
But nearly all 7.8 billion live under the night sky and see 'moving stars'. And that's why I think a global vote would come out saying 'no'.
I think you're right that the vote would be no, but not for the same reason you do.
I think many people reading:
> Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched
... would stop right there and say "I have no idea what that is, so no"
I’m British, so this question definitely applies to me, by the way.
7% of the world has a college degree.
The median full-time fast food worker in the US is in the top 6% income, globally.
There’s always going to be capex to bring the internet to far-flung places, but my point was that starlink means it’s no longer “dig a 100km trench and install a fibre” expensive.
So... you're critizing having no elections by assuming the outcome of one based purely on personal intuition? I think you're making the same mistake you seem to criticize.
Also just think about the impracticality of doing something like that and at the same time the fact that of that 7.5B, 90% probably wouldn't care. How many complaints about starlink have you received from, idk, China or Zimbawe or rural Russia?
And it's absolutely not true that the US is the only country that has a say here. International regulatory bodies exist as well. Maybe the citizens of some countries don't have effective governments that express their will at the UN but that's not SpaceX's fault. There is a process to have everyone's voice heard. It's not the wild west.
And I think you underestimate how much people like and want truly global wireless internet service. The value to the world is enormous.
It's always funny to me when I see this "7.8 billion people didn't choose a private corporation", as if they chose the american government lol.
It's surprising to me so many people are angry over the sky being polluted visually, and not over common air poisoning by burning fuel, river pollution by dumping waste, ocean and sea pollution by ship transportation, plastic pollution, and many other... Rain water is already above (arbitrary) safe toxicity level and so shouldn't be drunk... So what you're doing is you're in a house fire and complain on some noise. This doesn't mean of course you're wrong: the pollution is a problem to astronomers and to the safety of space ventures.
