science

I think a lot of people believe the science in this article to be problematic. Another poster went into several reasons. It's heavy on persuasive language, shy of facts, and many of the facts are suspect, and it hasn't been accepted by any publications so it hasn't gotten any peer review. It's possible it hasn't gotten any publication because the apparently quality is so low.

It might be that people see your comment as accepting the validity of the claims which suspiciously have no peer review, and are then jumping the gun by associating it to things which ARE well scientifically established like climate change.

It's kinda leaping to an ethical and political discussion when there are a lot of outstanding questions about the science. And this is /c/science.

I can't speak for others. I didn't downvote you. But, your comment wasn't really... Science?

Not sure; I up-voted you. 🥲

that will make some people immensely rich

Not sure what this means. Most satelites make everyone a little bit richer (weather, GPS, communication satelites).

it’s up to the cooperation of countries to research, mitigate, and control it

I would argue that companies SpaceX have a lot to lose from space debris. If space becomes inaccessible, they can't do any business. They do a lot to mitigate space debris (especially with Starlink), and this is rational because too much space debris threatens their mission.