I feel like I almost agree with everything you say, except that I systematically conclude the exact opposite. You seem to keep stopping half-way through every single point you mention:
> In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner.
Newer tech is cleaner if you ignore rebound effect. It's absolutely certain that in history, new tech has always resulted in more energy use, which is the exact opposite of "cleaner".
> Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC.
Everybody having more money means that they can consume more. Do you know who goes on holiday by plane? Those who have more money. It's absolutely clear that those who have more money pollute more, even if they feel good because they drive a Tesla (which is all but environmentally-friendly).
> Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way.
Okay, it is "better" by many metrics. But certainly not by the environmental one. We are talking about the environmental impact here, right? Starlink is technically impressive, but it doesn't mean we should do it. It's just part of the problem, and we don't need it.
> In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them.
Surely? It's all but sure. You don't even say precisely what you are talking about: do you account for the cables that are already out there and work perfectly fine? Or do you just consider the cost of bringing fiber to your tent in the middle of the desert? Maybe Starlink is better for that, but we don't need it. In fact we just can't afford it, at this point.
> Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech.
This is preposterous. With our current understanding of physics, more tech will certainly not help. We would need a breakthrough that is akin to wishing for a miracle. You may as well wait for Jesus to come back.
But there is more: our society depends on fossil fuels. But not only there is no serious way to replace them entirely (meaning that we cannot save the climate/biodiversity without fundamentally changing society), but they are limited and will become a problem in the next few decades (meaning that society will fundamentally change, whether we want it or not).
You can wait for a miracle, or face the truth: we need to prepare for a world with (much) less energy. And in that world, there is no place for fiber in your tent in the desert.
> In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner.
Newer tech is cleaner if you ignore rebound effect. It's absolutely certain that in history, new tech has always resulted in more energy use, which is the exact opposite of "cleaner".
> Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC.
Everybody having more money means that they can consume more. Do you know who goes on holiday by plane? Those who have more money. It's absolutely clear that those who have more money pollute more, even if they feel good because they drive a Tesla (which is all but environmentally-friendly).
> Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way.
Okay, it is "better" by many metrics. But certainly not by the environmental one. We are talking about the environmental impact here, right? Starlink is technically impressive, but it doesn't mean we should do it. It's just part of the problem, and we don't need it.
> In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them.
Surely? It's all but sure. You don't even say precisely what you are talking about: do you account for the cables that are already out there and work perfectly fine? Or do you just consider the cost of bringing fiber to your tent in the middle of the desert? Maybe Starlink is better for that, but we don't need it. In fact we just can't afford it, at this point.
> Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech.
This is preposterous. With our current understanding of physics, more tech will certainly not help. We would need a breakthrough that is akin to wishing for a miracle. You may as well wait for Jesus to come back.
But there is more: our society depends on fossil fuels. But not only there is no serious way to replace them entirely (meaning that we cannot save the climate/biodiversity without fundamentally changing society), but they are limited and will become a problem in the next few decades (meaning that society will fundamentally change, whether we want it or not).
You can wait for a miracle, or face the truth: we need to prepare for a world with (much) less energy. And in that world, there is no place for fiber in your tent in the desert.