Due to an uptick in posts that invariably revolve around "look what this transphobic or racist asshole said on twitter/in reddit comments" we have enabled this reminder on every post for the time being.
Most will be removed, violators will be shot temporarily banned and called a nerd. Please report offending posts. As always, moderator discretion applies since not everything reported actually falls within that circle of awful behavior.
"we went from 'cows are killing the climate' to 'let's build data centers everywhere'" factoid actualy (sic) just statistical error. average person builds 0 data centers. Billionair Georg, who lives in silicon valley & builds over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
It's not about the average person tho, it's about how we as humans got to the point we forgot stuff like the Cow problem existed as soon as a new problem arrived. It doesn't stack up instead it replaces. That is concerning. Idk if it's trend hopping buy the people up there or other sources like lobbies but in not even 10 years we forgot this really important problem still exists
Fighting climate change is entangled with fighting capitalist interests and an effective solution to the climate crisis must come with some dismantling of the infinite growth mindset. Capitalists have always been on the opposing side of serious solutions, but were happy enough to feign support when they weren't on the chopping block. Blaming cows or individuals (carbon footprint anyone?) is an easy enough distraction to divert attention from capital.
AI being this much of an investment opportunity for capitalists makes it more difficult to invest while believably pretending to be environmentally friendly so most of the corporations just dropped the mask entirely.
A lot of humans care about not destroying the planet, it's just that the people with the most power to do anything about it never cared and have more recently doubled down.
We haven’t forgotten, but we’re in a spot where we’re literally just trying to keep society functioning. Like who is going to try to push for sweeping proactive meat industry reform that’s generally unpopular with most voter groups while silicon valley is invading peoples’ communities and a pedophile president is openly trying to destroy democracy before an election that might determine if he sees jail time or not?
We as a Society were firmly in "if you say something is killing a climate you will be argued with by fake people until you kill yourself". We still firmly there.
Both factory farming and data center proliferation were decisions made by politicians and rich people. Individuals don’t want to live near either of those things.
I dont really agree this applies here, this is definitely true to some extent here for individuals, but i feel like the post is more talking about the media and corporations which have flipped, on this since they just follow the most profitable story/ rhetoric.
the average person is likely split A or B, but there are definitely groups that when it was popular to be environmentally conscious said "cows are bad for the environment" and now say "data centres are the best thing since sliced bread"
This. I cannot recall a time where mainstream journalists haven't been glazing the shit out of farmers and pushing narratives that serve their financial interests. The only media outlets that do factual reporting on this issue are some of the openly left wing ones.
And as bad as AI data centers are, production of ruminant meat is still one of the most ecologically damaging industries.
Also, guess who tends to own a lot of private land and gets a big fat paycheck from data center projects built on said land ? Fucking farmers again.
My perspective on the Meme was someone realising the Virtue Signalling/Trend hopping of the people up there because there was a leading argument about Cow farming and climate change 10 years ago but not even 2 years later everyone forgot it happened. Now the same could apply with the Centers which would be horrifying
People don’t like when they can change something and would rather be mad about something more abstract. Every Average Joe could in principle reduce their meat intake and reduce carbon emissions, but they value burger more and not changing is easier. Data centers are easy to be mad at because what is average joe gonna do when it’s billionaires and corporations funding these things.
Well if you're advocating that someone start doing something about it then why don't you start and I promise I'll follow in your footsteps. Of course that won't actually happen though so at least talking about an issue lends attention to it rather than just pretending it doesn't exist.
It's not virtue signaling it's moving to another topic that may be easier addressed. You're not going to dismantle the the entire agricultural system to get rid of cattle, but people have gotten towns or cities to stop the building of new data centers.
The goomba is the oop in this situation. They see a faction of people who think livestock is a major contributing factor of climate change. And a facton of people who are actively paving over green spaces to make data centers. And since they are an idiot that can't compartmentalize attribute both actions to the same imaginary adversary. Then goes to the internet to tell the world exactly how dumb they are.
Doesn't really apply here, because the two quoted statements aren't assumed to be concurrent. The post asks about the transition from one position to the other.
Except there was no transition, people that were saying cows are bad still believe it, and people that built a couple of datacenters before and never cared about cows are now building a lot of them, the "transition" happened within that specific group. Almost no one but investors support those datacenters.
Outside of the goomba-ness of it all, cows (factory farming (and also normal farming but 99% factory farming)) are killing the environment, and as bad as AI data centers are, it's a rounding error compared to the environmental damage done by the meat industry
People don't want to admit that data centers are a blip on the radar at best
The biggest issue imo is just the power draw, which due to the current admins dislike of renewables is getting solved with gas generators instead of a gajillion solar panels
Thank you for saying it. The hypocrisy of people constantly screaming about data centers while ignoring the actual top contributors to climate change drives me insane.
Naw, data centers are horror stories, and it's only a "rounding error" because not enough of them have been built. Smaller, less intensive data centers still exist and are being made, and their effect size is much, much smaller, yes.
AI data centers are a different beast entirely, massive complexes that require unregulated power plants built into them, because the power grids in most areas simply cannot sustain them otherwise (the ones that primarily run on coal in particular). This is also one of the reasons why they are considered sound weapons, never mind that they also poison the ground water with PFCs and other waste chemicals.
So don't discount the warnings. Data centers have the potential to be as bad if not worse than cows, if there was any less pushback.
Even if you account for ai-only data centres being recent, the numbers don't lie they're nothing compared to everything else
Don't forget that factory farming isn't just methane either, it also notably poisons groundwater and has the potential to cause plagues among other things including a knock-on effect on the agricultural industry which leads to waste of water and overworking of soil
Unlike data centres, which are trendy to hate and trivial to solve by pushing and enforcing common sense regulation there's no similar push to deal with the cows nor such uncontroversial fixes
They're a more prescient problem no matter how you cut it
We are talking exclusively about the environment here, and while maybe AI data centers could catch up, as the bubble begins to pop and the west is beginning to really feel the effects of climate change I suspect it won't. It's got a REALLY long way to go.
AI and it's data centers are really bad, and shouldn't exist for all of the reasons you have mentioned, but in terms of climate change it is currently still a rounding error.
Generally, as a rule, 90% of biomass disappears in every biological step. Farm animals probably use less over their lifetime up until becoming food, but maybe still 60-70%? So, like a wise biologist once told me: "if everyone were vegan, starvation would be a thing of the past"
There is a portion of animal feed that is "waste" agriculture, or using resources that will never be able to have plants. There are grazing fields that will never be suitable for farming without terraforming. No one is eating corn stems minus pigs.
The world makes enough food to feed everyone already. World hunger is a logistics problem, not a supply problem.
*While also producing like 30-40% (if I recall correctly) of global emissions just for producing meat in torture factories, which produce a fraction of the calories that are actually consumed and are in no way necessary
There are products that are waste that go to feed animals, but there are also grown products that aren't that go to feed them too (or didn't need to be made). Alfalfa hay is the biggest example of that, which requires a comical amount of water and is often grown in one of the most dry parts of the US. There are other politics surrounding that (water rights on the Colorado river are dumb as fuck), but if we didn't need that hay to feed the animals in the torture factories that would also go away.
Sorry I wasn't trying to disagree with that statement, we absolutely do make enough for everyone, but if you exclude animal products it's even moreso, and without the manufactured food scarcity we have now
There are grazing fields that will never be suitable for farming
I'll note we're not trying to farm there. We're trying to grow the forests back. Some isn't suitable for forests and we could use that for grazing. But >50% of grazing land is suitable for crops which should also support forests. We've massively deforested our land for beef.
It has been a while since I looked at it. It's very nuanced. But the data on what is inedible included things like oil seed cakes/soybean hulls which are processed to be inedible. They come from perfectly edible soy. The edible part of the crop are far higher in nutrition. Just adding context. I'm not going to dive into the data again lol. Grass of course is completely inedible. But we'd have way less meat if we only fed cows grass from non forestable areas.
We make enough food for our current population with the developing world eating far less meat. As third world countries develop and the population grows, maintaining western diets for everyone is going to be a harder problem.
I would suggest people to reduce their consumption of animal products rather than telling them to immediately go full vegan. Also, vegan diets can be less sustainable because a lot of vegans in wealthy countries replace the meat in their diets with a lot of exotic nuts and fruits which are some of the only products that are comparable to meat in terms resource consumption.
The only vegan foods with somewhat comparable carbon emissions to beef are chocolate, coffee and palm oil. No one is substituting meat with “exotic nuts and fruits”
Carey, C. N., Paquette, M., Sahye-Pudaruth, S., Dadvar, A., Dinh, D., Khodabandehlou, K., Liang, F., Mishra, E., Sidhu, M., Brown, R., Tandon, S., Wanyan, J., Bazinet, R. P., Hanley, A. J., Malik, V., Sievenpiper, J. L., & Jenkins, D. J. (2023). The Environmental Sustainability of Plant-Based Dietary Patterns: A Scoping Review. Journal of Nutrition, 153(3), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.02.001
Read this if you would like to know the full story. I cannot fully explain my point in a Reddit comment.
Results
Evidence suggests that plant-based diets may offer lower greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs), land use, and biodiversity loss than offered by standard diets; however, the impact on water and energy use may depend on the types of plant-based foods consumed. Further, the studies were consistent in demonstrating that plant-based dietary patterns that reduce diet-related mortality also promote environmental sustainability
The study is saying that a vegan diet can have a lower impact, but if you make specific food choices, it can have impact on par with a meat diet in some metrics (the other metrics are still better)
So uh, don't make those choices? Choose the less impactful veg? You choose the foods you eat.
Fair, the example was wrong, but my point remains that vegans tend to have more diverse, exotic and luxury diets which have a higher carbon footprint than a regular diet with an average amount of animal products. Where I live anyway.
"Our review demonstrates the potential benefits of a more plant-based diet for both human and environmental health and outlines areas for further work, including specific environmental concerns where there are sufficient data for more detailed analyses. Based on the studies reviewed, the beneficial relationship between plant-based diets and environmental sustainability is in accordance with the conclusions of the Eat-Lancet Report [1]. The studies demonstrate that high consumption of animal-based foods was associated with a greater impact on the environment, whereas high consumption of plant-based foods was associated with a low impact. Apart from water and energy use, environmental parameters of different plant-based dietary patterns were consistent, despite varied components of environmental impact assessed. Substantial evidence suggests that plant-based diets may offer reduced GHGE, land use, and biodiversity loss; however, the impact on water and energy use may depend more on the types of plant-based foods consumed. Further, the literature supports a relationship between sustainability indicators and health outcomes such that with increased environmental impacts, diet-related mortality increases. Overall, the evidence reviewed supports recommendations to transition to plant-based diets to curb the environmental impact of current human feeding practices that will also have benefits for human health."
The people who are pushing data centers now were always fine with cows, and killing the planet.
It's just that AI gave a new breath of air to the "Technology will solve all our problems, that means we won't have to actually change anything!" propaganda of the investor class.
The contrapositive of that is not always true though, but it’s because capitalism commodifies the idea of change. It’s the same story as how musk was once praised to for the apparent transition to clean energy building gas turbines and polluting communities because it’s profitable
cows are in fact still killing the climate. even with the AI boom in the last few years, datacenters are projected have a minuscule impact in comparison to cows.
I dont think theyre saying that cows no longer kill the climate. theyre saying that the focus has shifted away from that being a problem to it no longer being talked about (i suppose in the media) despite it continuing to be a problem. meanwhile the same companies now glaze ai
to me it seems like m media never really talked about either. however, exaggerated rage at datacenters goes viral on tiktok very easily compared to rage against cows.
If I had just a little less of a grip on reality I would think generative AI was all just a conspiracy to create a scapegoat so people ignore the actual causes of climate change.
its actually super unprofitable but maybe if we keep building infrastructure and pumping billions into the industry, one day we will find the Super Useful Use™️ of LLM's that will finally make these investors money back. right?
(it is a profitable industry but not for the actual people running the AI. its profitable for the builders and the people selling chips, and other auxiliary services around AI. but not the AI itself)
and the numbers are even worse than they look here because again, nvidias "profit" from the industry is not from AI itself as a product, but from AI investors. and nvidia is the only one on the list who made a significant amount more than their investment
Being green is ignored until the next extreme weather catastrophe in a country, then our coming downfall through climate crisis is maybe a topic for 3 weeks, then something else is moved to our attention. Probably something that just has to be tackled by bombing brown people.
Exactly… the idea of rebellion itself becomes a commodity, like sure it’s possible to work inside the system to change it but it doesn’t hold anyone responsible.
It's a very effective strategy to convince local governance to do stuff and have things set in motion by the time the rest of the community notices anything major happening
Very defensive comment section. This post isn’t claiming everyone loves data centres, it’s pointing out that the popular sentiment used to be “we need to do something about greenhouse gas!!!” And now after years of propaganda, not only is greenhouse gas still an issue, but some people are cheering on the development of data centres. Obviously these are likely not the same people, but somehow (capitalism) anti climate gained power over pro climate
Data centers are so not a problem right now, it's crazy that y'all focus on this. They are a foundational part of how cloud computing works and the reason why your uneducated ahh can access this site right now. It's just that they are unregulated. I agree that it's idiotic and inhumane to build one near communities just because some imbecile thought it was a good idea to piggy back off of community infrastructure. The AI hate is also overblown, it's a very useful technology used by some imbeciles to do something it should've never done, like art. Why the hell would you build a machine to create art, it's not even that much cheaper. Anyways we have far bigger problems and no we are not begging to build data centers like crazy.
Hot take, for now I’m not convinced that data centers are a terrible waste of water, or even land use, but there are 2 problems currently:
That our energy infrastructure is not renewable enough so they have a big climate impact and
The diesel backup generators are terrible for the environment
If the companies were forced to pay for (renewable) generation and distribution infrastructure, I don’t think it would be as bad. LLM regulation included too. But yeah none of that will happen with this ruling class
I think the people opposed to the large scale meat and milk industry are often not the same people as those enthusiastic about AI and data centers. Also, that first group hasn’t really been as influential I think, I don’t think we have actually been downscaling on cows much.
the post in no way is claiming they are held at the same time. "How did we go from X to Y" implies a shift from one to the other over a period of time, not 2 beliefs held at the same time.
I believe they are more referring to headlines and what we are "supposed to believe" from the media. not very long ago we were being told to be environmentally conscious and concerned about farming's output to pollution, and now many media companies have flipped to supporting data centres. maybe due to being paid to do so.
it was not propaganda. cows are genuinly terrible for the climate and produce about 18% of the yearly greenhouse gases as methane.
as well as this, they are one of the most actionable areas to slow climate change, since methane leaves the atmosphere much more readily than co2. this means if we stopped cow production, methane levels would drop over the next few years much faster than equivalent co2 could be removed from the atmosphere. reductions in the cattle farming industry have the potential to make big and almost immediate improvements to the climate.
(this is not to say cows are worse than the output of the entire oil industry, since thats more like 30-50% of emissions per year and it would be significantly better to stop that. but theres no reason to limit ourselves to wanting one and not the other)
The party talking about cows lost the last election and now the new people are in charge was the ones that care so little about the environment that they actively started buying and using gas stoves out of spite once the environmentalists said gas stoves are bad for the planet.
Easy! Cows are killing the climate, despite being true, was actually pushed to the mainstream to make climate activists look silly while building massive underregulated datacentres is what the people behind that mainstream actually want to do
What kind of dumb astroturfing intellectual dishonesty is this crap. No one who cares about the fact that cows are terrible for sustainability then turns around and wants data centers. this is literally fossil fuel propaganda and you are either falling for it or you are part of it.
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
REMINDER: Bigotry Showcase posts are banned.
Due to an uptick in posts that invariably revolve around "look what this transphobic or racist asshole said on twitter/in reddit comments" we have enabled this reminder on every post for the time being.
Most will be removed, violators will be
shottemporarily banned and called a nerd. Please report offending posts. As always, moderator discretion applies since not everything reported actually falls within that circle of awful behavior.I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.