are you implying that it would have been better if we delayed or never used fossil fuels?

I think it's too early to tell, and it depends (a lot) on how the next ~25 years go. Probably not though, but that's mostly because both a) the world is so much better than it was pre-industrial revolution and b) I don't think that leap was possible without fossil fuels. It's not because pollution/CO2 turned out to not be a problem, quite the opposite.

With Starlink - offering cheap and high-speed internet access to currently underserved places is absolutely good and important, maybe even critical for long-term success and stability of some regions. It's not clear that this is the best way to do that. Kessler syndrome, light pollution, potential upper-atmosphere effects (ozone depletion), should not just be waved away. It's just more externalities piling up. Rich countries should be subsidizing these underserved areas around the world so they can put in infrastructure - cell stations, fiber lines, etc. - rather than filling up the sky.

Can we debate the "the world is so much better than it was pre-industrial revolution" statement? That's IMO the most interesting part here.

#candlesforall

Why not?

Take a quick look at the economic situations of the world pre-Industrialization.

Most riches we experience in this modern life... depended utterly on the energy credits we spent by burning the eons-old reservoirs of solar energy, of dead plants and animals.

And the biggest catastrophes we will experience in this modern life... are almost exclusively due to the energy credits we spent by burning the eons-old reservoirs of solar energy, of dead plants and animals.

Honestly not sure it's a win. Maybe they had less, but they had not destroyed most trees, mammals and insects (which we have already), and all that for what? For a future where we will most likely have much, much less energy, and therefore where most our modern system... will collapse.

And the jury is still out on whether he will be right or wrong.