top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 2 years ago*

That would be funny if it weren’t so infuriatingly true. Don’t forget the layoffs generated by replacing people with the AI and the shittier customer service as they replace more people with ineffective automated systems that completely fail to be able to help you with your problem thereby dumping you in a 72 minute queue with everyone else that the system failed to help in order to talk to a real live person in a foreign country that will do little more than read you a script and then escalate your case to someone that will never call you back.

gasp

I’d have written more but I had to take a breath.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (27 children)

    I don't see the connection?

    Each sector has to do its part: Food production, Housing AND, yes, computation. AND, not XOR.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Each sector has to do its part

    Me, doing my tiny part to help

    Billionaire, undoing the efforts of millions of people

    Energy prices surging. Agriculture collapsing. Heat waves killing thousands of people. Wars erupting over access to potable water.

    Everyone doing their part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I don't think downplaying our efforts is really helpful to our goals.

    I also don't believe in the individual vs collective action blame dichotomy, because we should build pilitical infrastructure that fosters climate action and prevents emissions -> If we continue to put or keep lawmakers into power that empower the extreme rich, we disempower ourselves.

    The subsequent economic system doesn't really matter, but the physical output matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (37 children)

    You can power a datacenter with solar panels and hydro, there is no green way to raise cattle.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 91 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 children)

    There is absolutely no green way to extract all the material needed to build a datacenter.

    There is plenty of green ways to raise cattle, however with these ways you can't feed everyone beef at almost every meals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    There's a billion obese people in the world and tons of food get wasted every second. Same for hardware, there's disposable ecigs and they put leds on packages now. Unlimited greed and excess can hardly be green in every case scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    So you're agreeing with him, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm just pointing out that the level of exploitation you apply into something play the biggest role in making it green or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    What was the green way to raise cattle (asking as a cheeseburger lover). I don't see any real way to do so. Seaweed in their feed is a good way to reduce methane production I've read but I've never raised cattle, just a few hens in the backyard for eggs. They roam around eat the bugs, weeds, grass, etc but are all around an easy pet(?) to have.

    5 hens, no roosters, roughly 2 dozen eggs a week. Obviously supplement with feed but care is easy. Hose down the coop on the outside, and replace pine chips which last a decent bit, but they compost/biodegrade and with chicken shit on them I think using them for mulch in the garden should be good for the garden as well..... The chickens may eat your garden though haha

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    There is absolutely no green way to extract all the material needed to build a datacenter.

    Isn't this just energy dependent lol? Renewable energy and safe mining practices is all it takes. Let alone space mining, dyson spheres, cold fusion, even regular nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Energy is only a fraction of the issue and easily solvable, I'm not a 100% certain but I think that some mines are even powered with renewables energy.

    The main issue is tailings, millions of cubic meters of toxic, sometime radioactive, full of heavy metals mud. The tailings are piled up behind dams that regularly breaks and contaminate entire regions.

    Even of the dams don't break it is still hundred of square kilometers of land that is contaminated for millennia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 82 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You can also not power a datacenter that's only for generating powerpoints and instead use the renewables to replace coal plants. Until all our necessities are covered by renewables and we've retired fossil fuels, we should be dialing back the conspicuous consumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    The worst thing about many programmers and tech people is that in general these types of people will always be more obsessed with the next technology that will save us by allowing us to consume more and become more selfish than with genuine solutions to actual human problems not neatly defined computer/math problems.

    Like problems computer programs are useful for, techbros see the climate crisis as an optimization problem with easily definable numbers and quantities. Politics, ideology, emotions and systematic oppression and suffering don’t enter the algorithm in quantifiably explicit ways so they are considered trivial for the purposes of solving the problem. Most computer programmers I have met would have no problem writing a computer algorithm to save time for cops having to manually choose who to pull over and instead use a crime prediction algorithm trained on who police officers have previously pulled over in the past to “solve crime” and “make policing unbiased”. Maybe that is changing, but it isn’t because most of these people actually get what is so evil about writing a program like that in their hearts, they just understand they get shamed every time they suggest crap like this.

    Thus you get legions of these people decrying environmentalists and their strategies with a fatalist cynicism in places like hacker news while they simultaneously trot out whatever lame Elon musk style “revolutionary technology” that they think will solve the crises we face that revolves around catastrophically stupid global scale geoengineering or tech that is eternally 30 years away just magically becoming distributed and ready for mass market use tomorrow.

    Everything is optimization, everything must scale as quickly as possible, everything is about bigger and bigger regimes of control that enforce rigid operations and interactions. These people think the entire universe can be seen through the lens of factorio and it makes me vomit in my mouth a little every time I think about it.

    This is of course by far the most dangerous part about many programmers and tech people, by and large they seem to believe that because they understand computers that they understand everything they need to know about the world. It is really no different than any other kind of hubris, it’s just the rest of us give tech people more leeway to engage in it because the tech world preys so intensely on our practical real world hopes and dreams while laying claim to large swathes of our imaginative capacity to envision different realities.

    There are also many amazing tech and programmer type people, I am speaking in generalizations that will never include every instance of the type. I love you, cool and radical lefty techies!!!! This isn’t aimed at you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You can absolutely raise cattle in an energy neutral (or potentially even energy positive) way. Cattle, in nature, consume grass. Most of the energy the cows get from the grass comes from solar energy. If they're being raised on land that is not being used for anything else and no equipment or anything else is used, the area gathers more energy than it costs.

    However, this is generally not how cattle is raised. In order to meet the large demands of our society other methods are used that cost more energy. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it won't be done on a large scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Unless you find a way to prevent cows methane farts, being energy neutral won't solve the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Methane is generated from chemical reactions involving what they eat. The corn they're fed frequently in the US (because of our massive corn subsidies) makes them worse than they would normally be. No matter what though, they expel what they take in. The carbon for the Methane is gathered by grass from carbon dioxide in the air. Methane breaks down relatively quickly back into CO2. It's mostly a non-issue if it were done in a healthy way.

    Again, we aren't and won't be doing it sustainably (at a large scale), so this is all a thought exercise. If you were to raise cattle yourself on land that doesn't otherwise have a use, it'd be carbon and energy neutral. It's all a part of a system. Humans break that system, but cattle don't need to. They only do when humans are involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I keep hearing promising things about certain types of seaweed being an additive to cattle feed that dramatically lowers their emissions.

    But that costs money, so I'm not holding my breath on factory farms implementing it on their own prerogative.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I'd rather switch the datacenters to green energy before trying to convince people to give up cheeseburgers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    We cannot afford to do one before the other. We're need to do both

    To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

    (emphasis mine)

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 years ago

    People giving up cheeseburgers and SUVs has been on the table for at least forty years. If you’re younger than forty, that’s your entire lifetime. It has never not been a problem. It has always been exacerbated by republiQans. It will not change, it will not go away, it will never be wrong. Give up cheeseburgers and SUVs or kill the planet with arrogance and greed.

    Guess which one we’ve picked for forty years. G’head. Guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I agree, but I guess the scope is more about oppurtunity costs - "At maximum expanse of renewable energy, should we use that energy for fancy justifications of layoffs of middle to owning class tech jobs or for e.g. electrified heat pumps and vehicles for working and middle class people"

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›