But we HAVE so much to loose. At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it's not even decided we'll get that.

But as proven time and time again by the shitty predictions we are getting, we don't have anything close to a true understanding of the systems in which we live.

So on top of that, you'd prefer a single nation, most likely with economic interests well active in their decision making, to try and forcefully modify the system we don't really understand?

Count me out.

"Need to feel useful" feels like an altruistic decision. I believe most of these people are all but that.

I'm not having an issue by itself, but I'm having an issue with the fact that a private company has arbitrarily been able to cover much of the earth with stuff that is, at best, disruptive. Let's not forget also forget that the main reason starlink exists is military, not bringing internet to rural areas.

It doesn't.

@Wander Let's not forget the US also has way more influence than any other country. What I've seen so far in my life is that what happens in the US happens a few years later here.

It used to be a 10 year delay, and it was mostly for positive things, like innovations. Now it's more like 2-4 years, and for bad things. The first turning point for the bad, IMHO, was the iraq war and the death of UN Sérgio Vieira de Mello. It was mostly silent but it really changed international cooperation for the worst.

The second big turning point was Trump. It basically told every bigot, racist, ignorant person around the whole world "Now it's your chance". It validated so much of the bad stuff it would soon be felt everywhere.