@sundogplanets I'm a bit confused here, can I ask a question?

As a person living a 21st century life, the thing that worries me most about the current developments in space isn't problems for astronomy, it's Kessler syndrome. I thought lower orbits help dramatically with that, because despite the much higher crash probabilities the debris will clear within a decade or two, and then we could maybe re-start the space program and be less stupid the second time around.

But if you put enough dead satellites at orbits above 1000 km, we can end up screwed for centuries.

I appreciate your main point that we should simply be more picky about what we launch and why. But arguing for *higher* altitudes given the current "anything goes" launch environment doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Where do you think I'm going wrong in this line of reasoning?