Submitted 1 week ago by ccunning@lemmy.world to [deleted]
The biggest argument for the answer being “Yes” would seem to be their contributions to the Kessler Syndrome but I’m really not that up to speed on how severe or critical the situation currently is.
Starlink satellites are at 550km and without boosting they fall back to earth in 2 to 5 years. New ones are being put at 480km where the orbit decays only in few months. The oldest ones are already falling back to earth and burning up in the atmosphere.
This is really interesting. It had never occurred to me that satellites have propulsion systems. I always assumed that they were placed such that they would remain in orbit indefinitely.
I like how this answers the question perfectly yet indirectly.
Well, it’s 90% AI company, so I highly doubt it would be ok even without manchild.
Company culture comes from top.
So… very likely yes.
I mean Volkswagen is now a normal car-brand loved by millions since that dictator who created the brand through Porshe died. So yes a brand can become moral after the fact that their creator was an immoral person.
Considering that Volkswagens creator was way worse than Elon.
Not sure you want to use VW for current morality. What with the whole “constantly getting caught trying to skirt emission standards and other legal minimums that cost them money to hold to”
Well I was answering the question. But VW is now pushing EV’s anyway and it’s still, that is my opinion, more moral than Elon.
I give Volkswagen the benefit of the doubt that they had a turn-around and their massive investments in EV will pay off.
Capitalism is inherently immoral.
I can’t say I despise capitalism because it has worked relatively well. I do despise shareholders and publicly traded companies
just randomly on the topic of Kessler syndrome. could we make a big sticky thing to just throw into orbit and like. Stick to everything. like a space lint roller or one of those slimes people use to clean car vents. Just turn it all back into one big garbage ball somehow.
That’s basically like trying to pick up dust by swinging a lint roller through the air. It’ll take a lot of swinging to collect any reasonable amount that way.
big net
I’m not up to say on the math involved, but I’d guess things up there are moving too fast for that to work on a time scale that would be useful.
The short answer: no
The slightly longer answer: also no. Because orbits don’t work that way and space is really really big
There are companies who have plans for cleaning up space debris by grabbing it in various ways, but it’s not really feasible for more than super specific targets in very narrow edge cases
For most of the stuff currently in orbit, there’s not much danger regarding Kessler syndrome, as their orbits decay in a couple years to maybe decades in extreme cases
The bigger problem with current satellite constellations is the big amount of metal spreading into the upper atmosphere when they burn up (not a problem when a couple satellites do it, but problematic when hundreds do), as well as disturbing ground based telescopes
Ty! This the the longer answer I was really looking for. I figured it was probably a scale problem but it’s nice to have that confirmed.
SpaceX wouldn’t even exist without Musk and is deeply entwined with all his bullshit magical thinking or rather lying.
And as it stands right now their whole business model is deeply immoral, imo. Shooting shit into space, burning fucktons of fossil fuel, all to achieve things that could better be achieved with less effort. E.g. working on proper internet infrastructure in the USA instead of trying to solve the problem for rich people only.
But if you’re asking if it would be a good idea to remove Musk from that company I’d still say yes.
Musk (or one of his lackeys that has more of a brain then him) intentionally higher people with similar social views.
So yeah probably
That depends on why you think it’s immoral today.
That was kind of the reason for the question.
Basically, Musk is the reason I would not give the company money. The Kessler syndrome was the only other thing on my radar, but it sounds like that’s not really an issue based on other responses.
So I was hoping to find if there were any other issues with the company I should be aware of…
The way I see it, Starlink is more a military tech than civilian. It is a huge gamechanger on the battlefield and in the drone technology - it is the cheapest and most reliable way to obtain high speed network connection on a middlestrike drone.
So what Starlink would do depends on the will of American government. And that depends on who’s in charge. With all the consequences.
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Publicly traded companies are legally required to maximise profit for their shareholders. There inherently immoral.
litchralee@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
I can agree that corporations are immoral, but no one has ever offered a citation for “legally required to maximize profit”. Many corporations have failed in spectacular fashion and yet where are the lawsuits or criminal prosecutions for leaders that fail this supposed obligation?
What does exist is the fiduciary duty to be frank with shareholders, and many corporate officers have been sued for lying by omission. I believe that a corporate officer can choose to prioritize something else besides profit/value, so long as they inform the shareholders. In turn, the shareholders can fire the officer and replace them.
It’s no surprise that most officers won’t stick out their neck for non-financial causes, but let’s be honest if it’s simply self preservation rather than some oft-cited but wrong assertion of the law.
jqubed@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I don’t think there’s any legislated law that states that, but some courts treat it as a basic principle (especially in the state of Delaware). What I’ve usually seen as an early example of this is Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. from 1919. Henry Ford had amassed a surplus of more than $60 million (equally to more than $1.1 billion today) and wanted to reinvest that money in expanding the business with new factories while continuing to raise wages and cut prices on the Model T. As part of this he wanted to cease special shareholder dividends he had been playing out of the surplus. Brothers John Francis Dodge and Horace Elgin Dodge owned 10% of Ford and sued to keep the dividend payments coming.
The court ruled that Ford had to pay out a dividend of more than $19 million (more than $360 million today) to the minority shareholders. In the ruling, in a non-binding section, the judge wrote:
Ford was accused of trying to turn the business into a charity. Behind the scenes, though, one of his main motivations for not wanting to pay the dividend was suspicion that the Dodge brothers were using the dividends from his successful business to setup a rival car company to compete against him, which was exactly what they were doing.
It seems the interpretation of the ruling is controversial, even as to whether “maximize shareholder value” is actually enforceable or what the judge meant. I continue to think that the more investors a company has, the less the company will be able to focus on what’s best for the company, customers, and employees in the long run.
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
It’s a consequence of the eBay vs Newmark ruling. Arguments against it are theoretical only and haven’t been tested, and would be next to impossible to achieve with extant companies that don’t already have advertised social priorities.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 1 week ago
Which law is that?
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
I answered elsewhere in the conversation chain.
ccunning@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If you believe all companies are immoral then do you also believe boycotts are pointless? If I have to pay for internet, I might as well pay for Starlink if it best fits my needs?
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 days ago
Boycotts aren’t pointless, because they force companies to change by attacking their bottom line/share value. It doesn’t make them moral, it just hits them where it hurts.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 1 week ago
I don’t like the way @Zwuselmaus attacks a weak point in your comment, but a weak point it is. It’s not actually law (at least concerning USA and UK), yet in principle you are correct, at least in my opinion:
A Quick Search (tm) reveals many similar answers.
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 days ago
The quote you gave suggests that companies are legally expected to maximise profit, but with caveats/nuance. It also highlights shareholder pressure towards the same goal.
If the claim is that fear of legal action doesn’t technically count as 'legally required ", then sure, I used the wrong word. But as I said elsewhere, it doesn’t change my point.