I appreciate the attempt to provide perspective. Unfortunately its hard to translate the...space...of Space to something that the average person can visualize. Something like velocity is difficult to comprehend (a LEO sat moves at ~7.5km/s, an aircraft might fly at 0.25km/s, a car might drive at .025km/s), and that folds into something like positional knowledge--including other debris--being not exactly an exact science. For instance, while the industry is completely different from the age of the Iridium-Kosmos collision and RMS knowledge values are massively more accurate, consider that those satellites were predicted to miss each other by like half a km. Even today, COLAs are performed to keep conjunction events to ~km's. So when one is trying to visualize how much "space" each satellite has, its not a tiny satellite that's zooming through that space amongst a bunch of other tiny satellites, its more like a bunch of km's wide planetoids.
"Clutter" and collision avoidance are inexorably the same subject.
By any metric, Starlink is cluttering up space. And to make sure I'm not giving the wrong impression, that's not to say its fundamentally a bad thing--as we established just upthread it is clearly the most affordable, timely, and technologically relevant service for underserved folks, and nobody will argue against the opportunity created by that kind of service. That's also not to say there will be a catastrophe--on both sides of the public domain fence SpaceX is honestly focused on being good stewards of space, so its not just potential bad PR or the motivation to not self-annihilate that drives their pursuit of excellence.
What it means is that it does a disservice to downplay (or poorly reframe) potentially unfavorable elements simply because they are unfavorable.
