While I agree having that many satellites up there is a bad thing for all sorts of reasons, Kessler syndrome probably isn’t one of them.

Most of these new satellites have extremely low orbits, like they are literally inside the upper atmosphere. This means they have to boost a lot to stay up there and as soon as they stop the orbit decays. This can happen as soon as within months to a year and would be at most a couple of years. This means even if they all collide and create terrible clouds of small high speed particles blocking access to space, that cloud will be gone within no time.

The bad thing about Kessler syndrome is that if it happens in higher orbits, potentially the clouds of debris can stay up there for decades if not longer. Basically cutting off access to space or at least make it a lot harder and thus more expensive. But at these ultra low orbits that simply isn’t a thing.

With higher orbits the surface area of that imagined sphere rises with the square and the volume rises cubed. This means the higher you go the more room there is. So the smaller the chance of a collision. And even when there is a collision, on accident or intentional, that sphere of debris is still constrained by the original orbit. So chances of Kessler syndrome go down very quickly.

No, I’m more worried about the impact on scientific research. I’m worried about the impact on the ozone layer having so many rockets go up. I’m worried about the added pollution and wasted energy going into putting satellites up there that by design only last for 5 years max and often less than that. I’m worried about those space networks undercutting actual long term connectivity projects in a lot of places, leaving those people with one source that can be raised in priced or turned off based on some US based company/person/politics. I’m worried about my own astrophotography hobby being ruined by those damned things.