- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.
Large language models such as ChatGPT are some of the most energy-guzzling technologies of all. Research suggests, for instance, that about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3 at Microsoft’s data facilities.
Additionally, as these companies aim to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, they may opt to base their datacentres in regions with cheaper electricity, such as the southern US, potentially exacerbating water consumption issues in drier parts of the world.
Furthermore, while minerals such as lithium and cobalt are most commonly associated with batteries in the motor sector, they are also crucial for the batteries used in datacentres. The extraction process often involves significant water usage and can lead to pollution, undermining water security. The extraction of these minerals are also often linked to human rights violations and poor labour standards. Trying to achieve one climate goal of limiting our dependence on fossil fuels can compromise another goal, of ensuring everyone has a safe and accessible water supply.
Moreover, when significant energy resources are allocated to tech-related endeavours, it can lead to energy shortages for essential needs such as residential power supply. Recent data from the UK shows that the country’s outdated electricity network is holding back affordable housing projects.
In other words, policy needs to be designed not to pick sectors or technologies as “winners”, but to pick the willing by providing support that is conditional on companies moving in the right direction. Making disclosure of environmental practices and impacts a condition for government support could ensure greater transparency and accountability.
I’m lucky enough to be from a country with a relatively stable fiat currency, although it is unclear how much longer that will be the case. In order to protect the value I’ve gained from my work, I do hold some of it in Bitcoin. I also use it to support charitable efforts in less fortunate countries. It is an excellent way to transfer value to exactly who I want to transfer it to without giving massive fees to banks and other companies that facilitate the transfer of funds.
A big thing to remember is that whenever you hold any countries currency, you are basically giving them a blank check to your energy. You are telling them that they can have as much of the value that you have saved that they want. When they print more money, they are taking that value directly from you. It is one thing to pay taxes on income, property, and goods purchased and sold, but on top of that, they have the ability to extract extra value from you just by running their printers. The more you believe that a government represents you and has your best wishes at heart, the more you should be holding their currency.
So you lecture me about a bubble I supposedly live in/a lack of perspective for other groups - you know nothing about me by the way - and then prop up someone else’s theoretical problem/solution to make your point even though you probably live in the same circumstances I do?
I’m not saying you have to only pull from your own lived experience, but you have to understand why this makes me raise an eyebrow.
Oh my God that’s hilarious that you are just making up a strawman of it being helpful for reasons you don’t even use.
What a weird libertarian crypto shill perspective that is so absolutely unhelpful for anyone.
Just so you know, you are entirely misunderstanding what the term “strawman” is used to refer to. In general, it will make you at least appear to be intelligent if you use words in the proper context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I didn’t set up any opposing point of view to argue with. No matter what your view on this issue is, that simply isn’t what I’ve done in this situation.
Despite the fact that we are on different sides of an issue, I was still able to help you with something that may prevent you from looking stupid in the future. See how that works? Someone doing something to help someone other than themself.
Nah.
You created your own fake argument for crypto currency despite not using it that way and not being the conversation when it’s about energy use.
You built your own strawman. Of an imaginary person that is benefiting in a way that makes you feel better.
You are also condescending. It doesn’t make you right in an argument it makes you self assured and self serving. Looks like I was helpful too.
They are not imaginary. There are millions of them. I’ve met many of them, and so can you if you ever decide that people from poorer countries are worth your time.
And again, that simply isn’t what a strawman is. Read the link. Everything else aside, you are not using that word in the way people use it. It is as if you are insisting French people say “bone apple tea” before they eat, and then you are calling my condescending for letting you know that you misheard it. I understand it can be hard to admit when you were mistaken, but quite frankly, it will end up causing less harm to your ego in the long run if you do.
Wow. It is incredible how deeply ingrained selfishness is in you. You’re literally incapable of giving any value to anything that helps anyone other than yourself. You must live such a sad, lonely life that you can’t even imagine that there people could exist that are not 100% focused on themselves.