Rendered at 09:39:15 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
vineyardmike 23 hours ago [-]
Those in power seem to think that a compute advantage is necessary to maintain economic advantage. Despite this, the voters universally hate data centers, so much so that both NY and TX have data center construction moratoriums.
Despite this, those in power refuse any environmentally aware energy policy nor water policy. Despite this, companies have been trying to be environmentally aware for either moral or marketing purposes to get social permission to build DCs. Despite this, companies are “forced” to build their own “dirty” power sources since political power is disrupting green energy build out. Despite this, demand is still high so that compute costs are continuing to rise. Despite this, our economy is increasingly predicated on a few companies using more compute than geopolitical rivals with cheaper electricity. Despite this, those in power are, again, unwilling to create a compromising policy (aka clean energy) that voters actually would demand before tolerating more DCs.
What’s going to lose first? Voters/environment, politicians/the oil lobby, big tech, or the overall american economy?
fps-hero 21 hours ago [-]
Look to Australia if you want to see how these energy policies work out in the long run.
Energy is big money. Anything that disrupts the status quo is immediately vilified. It got to the point that our major party at the time lead a “gas fired” green energy policy.
They got voted out, the new guys implemented a subsidised home battery policy. In the space of a year it has destroyed the economics of a carbon fuelled grid. All the economics pointing to renewables being the way forward were proven correct.
Everyone gets their back scratched. If you’re a consumer and you invested, you have a massively discounted personal power station that generates you money. If you operate the grid, your transmission costs and peak transmission costs went down. General consumer prices went down because of a reduction in peak electricity use driving up retail costs. Everyone in won.
Except big gas, who cannot turn a profit on a renewable success story. Don’t let rhetoric become your reality.
zomiaen 19 hours ago [-]
It's absurd how the propaganda against green energy on certain political spectrums essentially turned into, "It's all money/cash grab for green energy companies!"
As if the established industry has no incentive in the opposite direction? Everyone is going to act in their best interests in this system, that's how it's designed, the whole point of government is to mediate the system in the best interests of the whole.
AneBytree 8 hours ago [-]
RE "...how the propaganda against green energy...."
One problem is statement are made , that depend on certain definitions , where the definition is not what a reasonable person would expect.
Such as statements about costs of renewables. How exactly is the cost of renewables measured.?
I'd have to say there are lots people who do not believe the government is acting in their best interests. Its one of the reasons why Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" party has gained a lot of traction.
defrost 21 hours ago [-]
> Except big gas, who cannot turn a profit on a renewable success story.
If only.
Chevron’s Gorgon project will be ongoing for decades and making money hand over fist flogging LNG out of Australia to overseas customers.
It'll be a massive source of previously sequestered CO2 and claimed to be "the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet* .. with the minor catch of (re-) stashing away a very very tiny portion of the CO2 released. Something, something, not let it out in the first place?
Still, could be worse, at least they're not planning on fracking the Kimberley.
The name is actually "Gorgon"? So a gas company named a project after a legendary monster.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. CO2 sequestration sounds good in theory. But...
asdefghyk 13 hours ago [-]
RE " Everyone Wins "
Well the tax payer, would be paying the 30% subsidy for Home Battery deployments, which I understand is severeral $Billion 8.5 AU at present.
One group of loosers will be people who can not afford to participate in this program.
It would seem another group would be users who cannot shift their electrity demands from peak times when electricty will become quite expensive.
AneBytree 8 hours ago [-]
The comment is factually correct, It's a inconvenient truth.
Battery deployment is not free.Someone (the taxpayer) pays.
I suspect after they are quite widely deployed. Government could change conditions in future that they must be available as virtual power plant (VPP)
There has been a rush on these since people want access to cheaper power and they believe to avoid the power increases to come. That there will be big increases in power , especially during peak time is the forced introduction of smart meters which allow easy tariff change etc ....
AneBytree 8 hours ago [-]
RE "....Look to Australia if you want to see how these energy policies work out in the long run......"
The timeline is several years
perpetuallunch 20 hours ago [-]
> General consumer prices went down
What now?
Where in Australia have consumer prices gone down?
> because of a reduction in peak electricity use driving up retail costs
I don’t understand what you’re trying to day here.
> Power prices to fall for most customers, with bigger drops for businesses
> What is driving [lower prices] is a reduction in the cost of producing electricity. We've seen a lot more batteries and solar systems come into the electricity market in the last 12 months. They've been making the market much less volatile," Ms Savage said.
> "We've not needed as much gas and hydro generation in the evening peaks, and that's what's really cut that cost of wholesale generation."
perpetuallunch 14 hours ago [-]
That is an article about a prediction, not actual data about a drop in price.
An article from a month and a half in the past.
Still waiting.
AneBytree 8 hours ago [-]
RE "....consumer prices went down...."
A bit misleading comment ..
Yes , but after prices went up from renewables
perpetuallunch 7 hours ago [-]
Yep, exactly. Due to the deranged Net Zero policies of successive Australian federal and state governments, Australia have experienced skyrocketing electricity prices, so any small decrease in residential and industrial prices now is effectively a shit sandwich.
jimmydorry 19 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
t0mas88 23 hours ago [-]
The overall American economy is going to pay the price in the long term. And current foreign policy is reducing trust in America as a reliable and stable partner, which will make things even worse.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
Well yeah, it's basically locked in now that in 50 years America won't be a world power any more. It'll be in a similar place to Canada at best.
gruez 21 hours ago [-]
>in 50 years America won't be a world power any more. It'll be in a similar place to Canada at best.
> What's going to replace it? Rapidly aging China?
Using the age profile of a country with over a billion people to dismiss its geopolitical power has no credibility.
More appropriate to point out their (our) lack of domestic chip production and outsourcing of critical technologies.
gruez 20 hours ago [-]
>Using the age profile of a country with over a billion people to dismiss its geopolitical power has no credibility.
The first two charts are for GDP, which correlates pretty well with geopolitical power. Moreover if we're going by population, wouldn't that imply India, and then later Africa are going to be superpowers?
dathinab 19 hours ago [-]
GDP is subtle broken in many ways
A "in general" correlates with geopolitical power doesn't necessary mean you can point at a specific case look at their GDP and come to a good conclusion. Especially not if it's as much of a special case as China.
> wouldn't that imply India, and then later Africa are going to be superpowers?
which might actually happen. If the US falls further from grace and the situations stays like that for a few decades, or the US and another huge power (e.g. China) fall into some costly conflict then India or a union of African countries have a serious chance to become a world super power.
---
=> But more relevantly this discussion is going into red hering argument direction:
- No one argued that you should go _only_ by population, the argument is, that if a country with a gigantic population shrinks hugely they still have enough people left to wage large scale wars.
- Similar no one (should) argue that GDP is by itself meaningful for such an assessment, it's one imperfect not supper reliable statistical point. Especially given how things move wrt. dark factories (i.e. fully automated => no light one as no human there), AI and similar. Yes, if GDP is supper low or high that says a lot, but a lot is not everything and a average GDP for decade long trends in a word looking to face a major time of change means not much in any direction.
- Similar we are speaking about decade long developments, current military strength ist also just another non fully reliable indicator. E.g. Germany post WW1 had close to actual 0/no military strength, and then there was WW2 just a few years later...
gruez 19 hours ago [-]
So going by one statistic (GDP) is bad, but going by another (population) gets a pass because... China's "special"? I'm sorry, but that just sounds like a special pleading. I don't like this because it just turns arguments into a fact-free zone where objective facts don't matter and the only thing that does is handwavy vibes from either side. Is China going to be the dominant superpower? The supporters can handwave endlessly about robot armies and the superiority of an authoritarian political system. The detractors can handwave endlessly about the demographic crisis and the fragility of an authoritarian political system.
dathinab 8 hours ago [-]
I litterally wrote a comment saying going by a single statistic is not sufficient.
and it's not China being hadwaving "special" but the measurement you are applying really not working well for a country which is only half capitalist and half planed economy. Which is a separate argument from dark factories which is about (non low end) production in China getting increasingly decoupled from human worker and in turn is way less affected from a population collapse then it would be in other countries. This has nothing to do with robot armies, an argument you just made up, even if China would lose half their population they still had more people and in turn can theoretically man a larger army _even if they have a by % much larger population collapse_, they don't need any Robot army. Similar no one said their system is superior. Or do you mean the US, as a two party system with an extremely powerful president is something some would call semi authoritarian. Either way China having done some pretty effective decisions in recent years in some areas doesn't in any way mean it's the better system. Like a Monarch can do grate decisions, but Monarchy is still is a very bad system.
Either way I also can't follow you how you jump from a listing of rough facts to there supposedly being a fact free zone.
What there isn't is a single simpel conclusion.
I mean it's a discussion where a single bad decision of a larger power can easily cause a unpredictable chain reaction which completely changes what are and aren't likely outcomes.
The world is inherently complex and not everything has a simple black/white conclusion, actually most things don't have one. You can only look at all available metrics and do a guess what the future will bring.
andsoitis 20 hours ago [-]
> wouldn't that imply India, and then later Africa are going to be superpowers?
Conventionally, a continent isn't a superpower. A country is.
graemep 13 hours ago [-]
Africa is not a country.
jurgenburgen 20 hours ago [-]
You don’t need a numerical advantage to dominate if you have a technological / organizational advantage. The British empire was outnumbered 10 to 1 and still managed to control a large portion of the world for a while.
US government is working overtime to make sure legacy technologies stay around while the rest of the world is investing into the future.
graemep 13 hours ago [-]
> The British empire was outnumbered 10 to 1 and still managed to control a large portion of the world for a while
It also had the support of a lot of the population of the areas it controlled and at least toleration by the majority. Most of its colonial civil service and military were people fro the colonies.
gruez 19 hours ago [-]
>US government is working overtime to make sure legacy technologies stay around while the rest of the world is investing into the future.
"Rest of the world"? Europe isn't even a player in the AI race. China might be better placed, but they also lag the US in terms of model development and capital deployed. They've been catching up, but that's not the same as "[American will] be in a similar place to Canada at best". That would require a lot of things to go right for China and/or a lot of things to go wrong for the US.
dh2022 13 hours ago [-]
AI is purely a virtual world play. It may (or may not) make it easier to write code, reply to emails or Slack messages or create PowerPoint presentations. In the real world what matters are energy, natural resources and making (manufacturing) things.
AI will not make it easier to build a house, to harvest a corn field, to assemble a car. AI will not improve weather forecasting accuracy- this is already pretty much 99.999% solved. So AI will not improve standards of living.
All this to conclude that China’s standards of living will improve while America’s will stagnate (or worse)
But sure, go ahead and enjoy those AI videos-some of them are even funny.
fhdkweig 14 hours ago [-]
>>US government is working overtime to make sure legacy technologies stay around while the rest of the world is investing into the future.
>"Rest of the world"? Europe isn't even a player in the AI race.
I think the legacy technology he is referring to is the more about the electrical generation method rather than the AI use of that electricity.
jurgenburgen 11 hours ago [-]
Yes, all the technologies of the future demand a huge increase in energy generation that fossil fuels can’t satisfy. In the long run (decades) the US won’t be able to stay in the game with this kind of anti-scientific policies.
dathinab 19 hours ago [-]
> What's going to replace it?
I'm not sure if I'm mis-reading your comment, but:
The idea that you "need a single extremely powerful country to replace it or the US will stay in its position" just doesn't add up. I'm not fully sure if that is what you meant but I have seen that argument a few times.
_There doesn't need to be a replacement._
For most of the worlds history there wasn't a single leading world supper power, just regional super powers, or supper powers in specific sectors.
And if we speak about who could become a supper power _after the US stops being one and there isn't one for some decades_. Then there are a bunch of candidates.
E.g. China has a population collapse issues, but due to it's cut throat ruthless government and total population number and lead in factory automation might be from all countries with similar problems by margin the most likely to overcome it without power collapse.
E.g. the EU might have many issues (as it's members has many issues) but the general concept has proven hugely successful. And what people forget is EU is the cherry on top of a huge stack of treaties which can be extended to 3rd parties independent of full EU membership. Like e.g. Canada, which doesn't plan to become an EU member, but might join some of this treaties as result of the non stop hostility from the US. Same for military treaties between NATO members which are independent of NATO like e.g. JEF, which would likely be open for letting Canada join. Anyway way to many words. But the end result may be a world supper power which is not one entity but a complex lossy coupled network of countries.
Then there have been some other cross country unions and countries, which want to gain super power relevance but have so far been too irrelevant due to a combination of corruption, bad luck and sabotage by existing powers etc. But if we speak about going for a few decades without any leading super power and maybe prime canidates harming each other (e.g. a US <-> Chineese war) then they do actually have a chance.
gruez 19 hours ago [-]
>The idea that you "need a single extremely powerful country to replace it or the US will stay in its position" just doesn't add up. I'm not fully sure if that is what you meant but I have seen that argument a few times.
The OP goes further than merely claiming that US will lose its spot as the top power. It claims it won't be a world power at all:
>in 50 years America won't be a world power any more. It'll be in a similar place to Canada at best
For reference, Canada ranks #11 in GDP, below Russia and even Brazil. On military spending it ranks #16, below Poland and Spain. It doesn't have nukes. To suggest US will ever come close to that in 50 years is laughable.
dathinab 19 hours ago [-]
> claims it won't be a world power at all:
which is very much possible
50 years once just a blink in human history is today enough to have 2 major industrial revolutions
nukes are not an argument for anything but main land defense from invasions
Look Russia, it was considered on of the most powerful countries military wise and cleanly in the top 10 economically. Many treated it as a 3rd place behind USA/China. It probably will be neither military nor economically overly relevant in 10 years. Through comparing a war economy with peace economies by most normal usable standards (e.g. GDP) isn't very meaningful. Yes it has nukes, no one will invade it (in a traditional large scale sense out side of some border conflict). But it's economy looks like the kind of war economy which leads to a complete economical collapse once the war ends (i.e. burning core substance) end while it's military could be very experienced now, by treating soldiers as highly disposable its unclear how much that actually is true.
Now look at the US, it has lost the majority of soft power thanks to incompetence (and it was maybe the nation with the most effective soft power). It has alienated most of it's allies, especially it's closest allies. Both from a military and economical POV. It's highly dependent on China, and tries to change that have shown very mid to bad outcomes. On the other hand China is increasingly less dependent on it (and the EU) and increasingly less attackable by sea blockades and other non-hot war counter measures the US had. It's behind on automated production. Countries are increasingly less willing to tolerate US bases on their ground which are essential for it being able to project power. The economy is increasingly dependent on a few pillars, which are strong but can crack anyway. The might claim AI leadership, but practically it looks like the price they payed to get there is one which not only will not pay of but can not pay off, it's just way to high. War is also increasingly going back to ways where even if you have superiority the cost of waging it is still severely high, in such a situation you can't force leadership by military force, if you try it likely will end similar to Germany in WW1. Lastly the internal instability Trump has brought by dismantling checks and balances
and arbitrary gutting of programs which turned out pretty essential for stability is bad enough to argue things like a putsch series or civil war being _realistic possibilities_ (not guaranteed at all, but possible where it wasn't realistically possible before).
If you put everything together the US dropping temporary out of the top 10 of overall most powerful countries is, not very likely but, very much possible.
It does have absurd geographical advantages, and nukes to make sure it keeps them basically for ever (as long as it doesn't splinter which isn't very likely tbh.). So the drop would be most likely be temporary at most.
Still it is possible, it's the price to pay for first squandering all trust/goodwill gained from WW2 over a few decades of greedy, egoistic, egocentric, ethical catastrophic politics. And then going complete "unpredictable, untrustable, instabile, high risk, publicly considering to start war with NATO or at least half of the EU (JEF+some others)" in recent years.
daishi55 20 hours ago [-]
lol… you don’t know anything about the Chinese government if you think they aren’t already preparing for this. And the difference between them and us is that when they prepare for something, they actually prepare for it with real state capacity and planning. You know they are building armies of industrial and humanoid robots for exactly this reason?
Also, sorry but the economist hates China with a passion, you really shouldn’t believe a thing they say on the topic.
gruez 19 hours ago [-]
>Also, sorry but the economist hates China with a passion, you really shouldn’t believe a thing they say on the topic.
Note I'm just linking charts and figures, not their editorials. It's ironic that you accuse "economist hates China with a passion", but the best refutation you can come up with is some handwaving about future robot armies. How do we know you're not just hating US (or loving China) with a passion?
There's so many ways to slice the data, I'm not sure there's an apples-to-apples comparison between US and China. However, it's fair to say both economies face demographic headwinds.
petcat 21 hours ago [-]
> It'll be in a similar place to Canada at best.
If Canada was a US state it would rank around 4th or 5th in terms of economic size and power. There's a lot of doomerism, but I seriously doubt the US is going to lose its top 4 or 5 economies in the next 50 years.
If you want to go really doomer, then I think it's actually more likely that Canada would become a US state instead of the US economy shrinking to the size of Canada.
But this is all nonsense talk anyway.
stevesimmons 22 hours ago [-]
Speaking as a European, current foreign policy is not "reducing trust in America as a reliable and stable partner". It has already reduced trust to rock bottom.
It's hard to see how much worse it could get, short of outright invasion or allying with Russia.
Just this week, amongst other news:
* America's useless adventures in Iran have used up so many Patriot missiles there aren't any left to defend Kyiv against Russian missiles, while Iran is still firmly in control of the Straits of Hormuz.
* Meddling in Greenland went up a notch with landing equipment to start oil drilling.
* State Department funding MAGA-oriented "free speech" disinformation campaigns in the UK.
* The revival of Trump's tariffs under the hypocritical guise of guarding against slave labour. Especially when the US prison system is such a large domestic source of slave labour.
Zero trust left here. Zero desire to visit the US ever again.
amarcheschi 21 hours ago [-]
I feel it is hard to grasp for an American how much perception of US shifted in eu. This is just anedoctal of course, but a famous Italian singer famous for having written a song about American and sexual liberation decades ago, wrote an updated version. The former is "America", the latter is "America INC." You can guess which one depicts America in a bad light.
I wouldn't have expected a famous singer to make such a song, given that America was always portrayed in italian pop music with a positive image, and negative views were relegated to mostly political groups or singers with political themes
StilesCrisis 20 hours ago [-]
Why do you think Americans don't grasp it? There are really two groups here:
- MAGA who doesn't care what Europe thinks
- not-MAGA who are just as shocked and disappointed as everyone else on the planet
amarcheschi 16 hours ago [-]
Simply put, I think Americans don't grasp it because even for us Europeans it is sometimes surprising how repentine and fast the shift has been in the regular Joe's brain - I'm not saying that Americans are stupid bla bla thing -, I'm saying that it is normal not be as up to date with some phenomena as people living where that phenomena happens.
Also, at least the Italian government is still dancing the tip tap regarding a position on America, not taking any definitive stance or doing anything significantly different than before, which is a big rift wrt what people want. Only exception for defense expenses
vrganj 14 hours ago [-]
I don't think the first group understands how important Europe is to America's status as superpower, while the second group operates under the delusion that the world will go back to business as usual after the next presidential election.
davkan 11 minutes ago [-]
Only the elderly who are blind to the decline and can’t even picture a world order outside other than Pax Americana believe we will go back to business as usual. The rest of us realize it will take decades of stability to gain a semblance of the trust we used to be granted. And in the mean time the rest of the world will forge ties that don’t include us. We will be weakened on the world stage compared to status quo prior to trump for the rest of my life I’m sure.
bladeacidic 7 hours ago [-]
You think there's gonna be a next one? He's installed his own people in all the right places, and got his own Praetorian guard.
wat10000 14 hours ago [-]
Plenty of us in the second group don't think the world will go back to business as usual.
vrganj 12 hours ago [-]
I'm sorry, friend.
xyzelement 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
DennisP 20 hours ago [-]
The US has been the foundation of European security since the beginning of NATO. Now Europe has good reason to think that American security guarantees are no longer reliable, and the US president keeps threatening to invade a European country, while Russia fights a war of aggression nearby. If I were European then I guess I'd find this rather more worrying than brown people moving in, or the struggles of car companies.
andsoitis 19 hours ago [-]
> If I were European then I guess I'd find this rather more worrying than brown people moving in
What does "brown people" mean? It seems like such a superficially racist characterization.
ipaddr 16 hours ago [-]
In Europe it means Muslims and in North America is means South American. In China it means Indians.
andsoitis 11 hours ago [-]
> In Europe it means Muslims and in North America is means South American. In China it means Indians.
Interesting. Thanks, I didn’t know that the Chinese used the phrase “brown people” to refer to Indians. Or that Mexicans (part of North America) use “brown people” to mean South Americans.
It seems such a weird phrase to use. Is it white people who use the phrase? Or also brown people themselves? What about sub-Saharan Africa? Do they have a group they label “brown people”?
Thanks for educating me.
DennisP 19 hours ago [-]
I assumed that was what the commenter above was talking about, but perhaps I'm wrong. From the little I know about it, most of the immigrants that right-wing Europeans complain about are from places to the south.
In case my understatement made things unclear, it's not the sort of thing I worry about at all.
andsoitis 19 hours ago [-]
> most of the immigrants.... are from places to the south.
and hence "brown"? What does that terminology even mean?
DennisP 19 hours ago [-]
Are you not aware of the protective effects of melanin from higher levels of UV?
andsoitis 19 hours ago [-]
> Are you not aware of the protective effects of melanin from higher levels of UV?
You're missing the point.
DennisP 18 hours ago [-]
You asked what I meant and I told you.
Hnrobert42 20 hours ago [-]
> Will my kids be an ethnic minority in their own country in the next generation - and if so, what's that going to be like for them?
What about this is an essential concern for you? Like, what are the potential harms?
andsoitis 20 hours ago [-]
> > Will my kids be an ethnic minority in their own country in the next generation - and if so, what's that going to be like for them?
> What about this is an essential concern for you? Like, what are the potential harms?
European countries take great care in maintaining and strengthening their traditions and cultural heritage. That would be at risk. Now, whether or not that actually matters or not is debatable, but Europeans DO seem to care to keep their cultures and traditions alive.
kwdev 19 hours ago [-]
This fear of "the others" that don't look like us or dare to have their own culture coming and "stealing" your cake has been used as a cheap distraction tactic for ages. It backfired for Germany, it's gonna backfire for the US.
I really like this metaphor:
A politician, a voter, and an immigrant are at a BBQ. There's 100 sausages on the grill.
The politician goes up, takes 99 sausages, turns to the voter and says "quick, that immigrant is gonna steal your sausage".
It's truly frustrating how effective it is to distract the general population by just inciting fear like that.
I lived all over the place after growing up in the Catholic German country side. I think the places most afraid from cultural dilution are the ones that needed it the most.
It's also so funny how folks in the US keep forgetting that they literally used to be immigrants of all sorts of origins and what made them so successful is leveraging the diverse perspectives. Most of this whole AI boom is based on work from people that came to the US from less privileged places all working together for something greater than them.
andsoitis 19 hours ago [-]
Totally agree.
What do you think about all the money and energy that European countries spend on propping up their traditions and cultural heritage VS just letting it evolve "naturally" as demographics shift?
nativeit 17 hours ago [-]
What are all these presently dominant cultures that are so fragile that the mere presence of others represents an existential threat? Sounds like an excuse for xenophobia more than a sincere concern.
convolvatron 18 hours ago [-]
you can't fault people for being confused. just because some people in the US have latched on 'cultural integrity' as their new favorite racist dogwhistle doesn't mean that it makes sense at all to anyone else.
its really funny. some people are fighting a fictional war that the 'other side' isn't really engaged in, and they're losing.
the other funny thing is that if you asked someone what the largest threat to their cultural identity is, a lot of them wouldn't answer immigrants - they would be more concerned about the cancerous US style anodyne consumer culture and media as being the most corrosive
fabioborellini 20 hours ago [-]
He knows how white Americans treat minorities
andsoitis 20 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
xyzelement 20 hours ago [-]
I think there are very few countries that can claim to have a good setup for an ethnic minority. Singapore, US, Israel, western Europe. Most of the world - being an ethnic minority sucks. As western Europe changes the ethnic western Europeans may not enjoy their treatment.
bdangubic 18 hours ago [-]
I would rather have my entire body waxed that be an ethnic minority for a month in the countries you listed (minus Singapore)
xyzelement 18 hours ago [-]
What are the counties not on my list where it's better to be an ethnic minority?
bdangubic 16 hours ago [-]
canada and norway for sure but you probably don’t want to be ethnic minority anywhere unfortunately
xyzelement 15 hours ago [-]
What's an example of an ethnic minority that's better off in Canada vs US
blooalien 11 hours ago [-]
> What's an example of an ethnic minority that's better off in Canada vs US
Considering our current "leadership" here in the USA, probably any minority with any shade of "brown" to their skin-tone?
xyzelement 10 hours ago [-]
What are you even talking about?
gspr 14 hours ago [-]
To racists, people who look different are inherently harmful. Racists are terrible.
khriss 16 hours ago [-]
> Will my kids be an ethnic minority in their own country in the next generation - and if so, what's that going to be like for them?
Are you sure they are not more concerned about 'Will my kids be able to get a good job, own a house and generally be at least as prosperous as me, if not more?'
xyzelement 16 hours ago [-]
That's item 2.
ipaddr 16 hours ago [-]
But they won't get good jobs or own a house because they will be second class citizens. Your generation made poor choices and they will suffer.
danaris 16 hours ago [-]
You know what the best way is to ensure that your children don't become second-class citizens because they're an ethnic minority?
Treat the ethnic minorities well today.
Lay the foundation for an inclusive, multicultural society now, rather than falling for the same old bullshit about immigrants stealing yer jerbs and using that as an excuse for rampant racism that will reverberate down the line.
gizajob 20 hours ago [-]
Only if you're some kind of lunatic, propaganda-believing racist.
ipaddr 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gizajob 15 hours ago [-]
When were European countries set up as ethnostates for the OP to be even slightly in the realm of facts?
latexr 19 hours ago [-]
> Will my kids be an ethnic minority in their own country in the next generation - and if so, what's that going to be like for them?
It occurs to me that an effective solution to that problem might be to… Treat minorities well? You know, like people equal to you? Societies are made of the people in them; if minorities are treated positively, then you don’t have to fear being in one. Teach your kids to be nice.
surgical_fire 20 hours ago [-]
I live in Europe, and I have a family.
If you are not a moronic racist, #1 is a non-issue.
As for #2, Volkswagen is far from going out of business. In any case, trade with China can be adjusted with adequate policy, EU as a trade block can handle it just fine.
As an European, I see the US as an actual existential threat to Europe. China is just a trade partner with some clashing trade interests.
mschuster91 20 hours ago [-]
> Will my kids be an ethnic minority in their own country in the next generation
I didn’t expect having to read great replacement bullshit on Hacker News. JFC do some napkin math, it’s utter nonsense.
preg_match 20 hours ago [-]
These people never say "great replacement theory", because they know if they do then that firmly puts them in the "flat earther" aisle. So, we need to call it out when we see it. This is just not legitimate ideology, it's a form of white supremacy.
ipaddr 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
surgical_fire 20 hours ago [-]
It's pervasive. Especially when it is people from the US commenting on the EU.
jurgenburgen 20 hours ago [-]
It’s MAGA ideology and commenters mentioning it are just revealing their red hats. Any Europeans regurgitating that _foreign_ ideology are pathetic.
k33n 19 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ipaddr 19 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
RevEng 16 hours ago [-]
It didn't happen in Canada, unless you mean the part where we rounded up all the natives and put them on reserves. I'm a white Canadian born and raised in Canada and I am far from being a minority no matter where I go, from the prairies to the GTA. Conservatives keep talking about this like it's a thing, but they do so from their majority white communities. The only places you see large numbers of immigrants is in low paying service jobs and you can thank the exploitive hiring practices of major companies like Tim Hortons - the people there are slaves living under the constant threat of deportation if they disappoint their employer/owner.
It's also worth noting that those white people concerned about becoming ethnic minorities are themselves immigrants. British and French colonists; German, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Irish; Hutterite and Mennonite - all immigrants, many within just the last few generations. For as long as Canada has been a country, it has been made up of many groups of different ethnicities, all immigrants. "White" isn't an ethnicity.
surgical_fire 16 hours ago [-]
Good answer.
Too bad the people that should get the message are barely literate.
ipaddr 11 hours ago [-]
People with other ideas are barely literate. Said someone who feels good about himself today but couldn't offer up actual facts and offered nothing to the conversation.
ipaddr 15 hours ago [-]
You are a minority in Toronto if you are white and less than 20% if you are British. Edmonton is 53% white and going down fast. Vancouver is down to 45%. GTA 43% white.
If you are in tech or government or banking or any large corp you are a minority.
Things have changed.
vrganj 14 hours ago [-]
If you are a native American, y'know, the actual native people of Canada, you've been a minority in your own damn country for centuries.
Those damn whites did their Great Replacement a long time ago. Foreign invaders displacing the native culture.
ipaddr 9 hours ago [-]
Happened to the people before these natives. Don't let the same thing happen to you.
vrganj 5 hours ago [-]
What are you even talking about?
surgical_fire 19 hours ago [-]
It's not some chaps from Eastern Europe, Latin America, or Africa that threaten me. My neighbor is Nigerian, dude is chill. Loves football, takes his children to the local playground, etc.
What threatens me is imbeciles that believe in great replacement and 14 words about future for white children. Keep your racism across the pond and try not to breed with siblings.
ipaddr 17 hours ago [-]
Just to clarify, you don't believe that the white population will be replaced in your country or you welcome it?
surgical_fire 17 hours ago [-]
I both don't believe that the white population is being replaced, and even if it was, I don't care. I am not a racist, my family tree does not resemble a circle.
Issues of migration and fertility rate are related to structural incentives and constraints, level of urbanization, economic development, etc.
I want my country to prosper. It won't prosper by closing itself off to migration. I hope it attracts more researches and highly educated people from around the world, especially now that the US is shunning them.
ipaddr 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
surgical_fire 16 hours ago [-]
> The natives in Europe are white.
You are bundling a lot of ethnicities, many of those who historically had major grievances amongst themselves, in race bullshit very specific to the US.
A "white" label is very meaningless this side of the pond. I have little patience for this shit, the US truly is a sick place if your rhetoric is what it produces.
ipaddr 11 hours ago [-]
I understand white people not identifying with each other and supporting each other. Other racial groups stick together and that's why you are hearing people say wake up from across the pond.
In the end what you don't value will disappear including your nation.
convolvatron 14 hours ago [-]
one thing that largely undermines even the notion of US whiteness is that 50 years ago the definition of white was very different. Italians were swarthy and not properly white. Irish, while ostensibly white in color, were a degenerate race. Half of the 'white' people in the US are race traitors because they just don't believe in this crap in the first place, and apparently they are on the chopping block too.
Arbitrary bigotry always finds a way to claim that it represents a truth.
vrganj 14 hours ago [-]
> The natives in Europe are white.
This is such a silly way to out yourself as absolutely clueless.
I would invite you to go to Croatia and explain to them how they're the same ethnicity as Serbians and they even speak the same goddamn language.
Please stop making grand proclamations about how our continent should act when it's obvious you don't understand even the most basic conditions.
ipaddr 11 hours ago [-]
If we went to Croatia and Serbia both wouldn't concern themselves white or they wouldn't consider the other as white? What would they call themselves?
I think they would consider themselves white from a different nations. Many north american natives come from different tribes but they are still Indian. Same thing.
vrganj 5 hours ago [-]
They'd consider themselves Croatian and Serbian. Whiteness is an American construct that is absolutely meaningless and smushes literal millenia of history into OBE category because your country's history is so short.
Please refrain from spreading nonsense you clearly know nothing about.
surgical_fire 13 hours ago [-]
> I would invite you to go to Croatia and explain to them how they're the same ethnicity as Serbians and they even speak the same goddamn language.
Telling anyone in the balkans they are the same as their neighbors because they are white will always be a fun exercise.
Except Greeks of course, who are widely recognized to be north African.
techgnosis 14 hours ago [-]
[dead]
xyzelement 19 hours ago [-]
I was going to argue but seemingly the math does work out
ipaddr 20 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
edmundsauto 18 hours ago [-]
It’s interesting how you zero in on skin color rather than culture. Many of the other dog whistles at least try to focus on culture and religion, but you went right ahead to equate skin color as being the issue. Bravo!
ipaddr 17 hours ago [-]
I don't see Asian countries like Japan, Korea or China welcoming in masses of other nationalities. I see African countries trying to push out white populations. Iran/Iraq or Israel isn't opening their doors to Indians or Africans or .... I don't see India allowing Africans to migrate or Chinese or....
Why should white majority countries loses their white majority and power while other countries keep their nation states?
goatlover 18 hours ago [-]
What if I told you the history of humanity is migration and mixing? That populations don't stay the same over time? That there were even other hominids sharing the planet with for a long time, some of which migrated to places before we did.
ipaddr 17 hours ago [-]
History of humanity is conqoring other tribes. Those other hominds don't exist anymore with some humans carrying a small percentage of their dna.
White majority countries will become another majority race because people like yourself don't see any value in people with white skin. Other races do and they will represent the future. China is still going to be Chinese so is Japan going to remain Japanese, so is India going to remain Indian. They see their value. White majority countries have been told they have no value and they will disappear.
ungovernableCat 21 hours ago [-]
There is a lot of that with the population but I don't see it at the leadership level yet. The top politicians are all still desperate to go back to the good old days of euro-atlanticism (and all the cushy positions it gets their friends & family), there's also the problem of all of their capital happily sitting and growing in fortune 500 companies.
andsoitis 20 hours ago [-]
> It's hard to see how much worse it could get, short of outright invasion or allying with Russia.
Why would the US ally with Russia, who is a Chinese and Iranian ally?
That's just uncritical thinking.
The United States is the single largest bilateral provider of direct military equipment, intelligence, and defense funding to Ukraine (a European country) against Russia.
latexr 20 hours ago [-]
> Why would the US ally with Russia, who is a Chinese and Iranian ally?
I don’t think the comment above you is suggesting that is a possibility, but rather saying “things are so bad that the only imaginable way to get worse would be <outlandish unimaginable scenario>”. In other words, it seems to be hyperbole.
andsoitis 19 hours ago [-]
Perhaps, though my reading between the lines is that they think trust is so low because the US won't help defend Europe and might invade Europe, even though, despite rhetoric, all actions point to the opposite happening.
bjelkeman-again 19 hours ago [-]
It is, as the USA has a large population. We can be more nuanced.
By absolute dollars, single country: US > EU institutions > Germany > UK
By absolute dollars, bloc vs. bloc: EU/Europe combined (~$237bn+) now exceeds the US (~$130bn), especially after 2025
By per-capita/GDP burden: tiny front-line states (Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway) far outstrip both the US and the larger Western European economies — the US actually ranks closer to the bottom of the pack on a relative-effort basis, behind Germany, the UK, and virtually all Nordic/Baltic states
Between February 2022 and January 2025, average expenditure per European resident stood at $394; by April 2026 that figure had risen to $618, driven by the total spending by European NATO countries on Ukraine exceeding $237 billion, including $96 billion contributed just since January 2025.
Average European (across NATO's European members) $618 per person (2022-2026)
United States (my estimate: ~$130bn total ÷ ~340m population)≈ $384 per person
Hnrobert42 20 hours ago [-]
That is an indisputably rough list, and I'm sorry that's your conclusion.
It's tough being here and feeling powerless to stop it. Beyond voting, campaign donations, judicious choice of employment, etc.
Anyhow, you're welcome back should you change your mind. In my book, anyway.
spiderfarmer 20 hours ago [-]
> feeling powerless to stop it
You guys are the meekest sheep to ever been led astray by a howling, undisguised wolf.
What more does this regime have to do to warrant massive, historic, disruptive, non-peaceful protests in the USA?
Have you seen protests in France? Bringing the country to a halt is the least you have to do in order for us to ever have faith in the USA again.
Until then, nothing any US citizen can say online will do anything to restore trust. If you're not rioting, you're complicit. It's as simple as that.
techdmn 20 hours ago [-]
I admit I haven't followed the French protests as closely as I should have. Do they shoot protestors in the face with teargas canisters there too? Maybe they do. Do those protestors face the real possibility of medical bankruptcy if they need extensive care? Does France enforce laws that protect striking workers?
Henchman21 19 hours ago [-]
Where do you live? Does everyone have an AR-15 in their closet? You do not seem to grasp the reality of our situation.
wat10000 14 hours ago [-]
The problem with the US is not the regime, it's the people. We elected Trump a second time with ~50% of the vote after seeing four years of his complete buffoonery. His approval rating is still around 40%. If he were somehow to run again in 2028 (never mind it being unconstitutional), there's a pretty solid chance he'd win. His party still backs him 100%, and nobody has any idea whether they'll maintain control of Congress after the midterms, because they still have enough support to plausibly keep their majority.
It's not about being too meek to fix things. It's about half the country wanting what's happening.
spiderfarmer 12 hours ago [-]
If you don’t want to fight for the things you care about, you don’t deserve them. Giving up before even trying anything is completely absurd to me.
verandaguy 21 hours ago [-]
The environment's already lost. We've passed the 1.5ºC deviation mark from the pre-industrial global average, and we're on track to hit 3ºC in a few more decades.
The excess deaths and human misery (both that which is increasingly clearly ongoing, and we have to look forward to) are going to be tragic.
DennisP 18 hours ago [-]
Yes, but there's still a range of possible outcomes, depending on what we do next.
verandaguy 18 hours ago [-]
You'll forgive me for harbouring some pessimism about current world leaders' climate strategy.
DennisP 17 hours ago [-]
I didn't say we'd choose wisely. But since there is still a range of possibilities, I'm not giving up on the whole thing.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
This week, the US government paid a wind farm company $1.2 billion to stop building wind farms. It also made solar inverters illegal last week.
firesteelrain 22 hours ago [-]
> It also made solar inverters illegal last week.
That’s overstating it. A couple clarifications.
It banned foreign (edit) made equipment because it’s known for cybersecurity issues. It was the FCC that restricted new foreign-made connected inverters over grid cybersecurity concerns. [1]
> This week, the US government paid a wind farm company $1.2 billion to stop building wind farms.
The $1.2B is real, but it wasn’t payment to stop construction. RWE agreed to surrender three offshore wind leases and settle related claims. Anyways, RWE’s three leases were in very early development and weren’t expected online until the 2030s. [2]
You can still think both policies are bad. But those are different claims.
It banned all foreign made solar inverters i.e. all solar inverters.
firesteelrain 21 hours ago [-]
That’s true. China dominates globally but I found that the US installed European and Japanese models. There is a big supply chain concern and set of reviews happening all across the entire government sector. Energy is a national security concern. [1]
If one is trying to attack the threat you claim, one might ban all internet capable inverters.
To ban all, even fully offline ones, means the threat you describe is an excuse.
firesteelrain 17 hours ago [-]
[dead]
margalabargala 15 hours ago [-]
Your other comment got downvoted to death (not by me) so I can't reply to it, so I'm replying here. Sorry the downvoting happened; your comment wasn't incorrect. You're right that inverters with zero connectivity whatsoever are not banned; my comment was overly broad. That said...
The ban covers any inverter with any wireless communication whatsoever. Bluetooth is specifically called out, despite necessarily being local-only and not enabling an internet connection.
I suppose you could make the argument that with Bluetooth, the app that communicates with it has internet access and thus it's the same thing. However:
The ban does not cover a power inverter with no integrated comms, but has a serial port into which is plugged a "sold separately" wifi dongle. Neither does the ban cover an inverter with an ethernet port. It covers solely wireless communication.
firesteelrain 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
m463 20 hours ago [-]
"connected power inverters produced in foreign countries"
I think home devices that phone somebody-elses-home are a cancer anyway.
Even if I assumed maximum malice, how are these inverters going to perform a coordinated attack on the grid?
firesteelrain 22 hours ago [-]
> Even if I assumed maximum malice, how are these inverters going to perform a coordinated attack on the grid?
They’re network-connected and remotely controllable. The concern is compromise of the vendor/cloud infrastructure allowing large numbers of inverters to be manipulated simultaneously.
Or even Trojan horse style malware is a possibility I suppose (Stuxnet).
That’s basically the threat model that they are using. If people want to argue with that, then that’s something to poke at
parineum 20 hours ago [-]
AC power needs it's sine wave aligned or it's very bad. If a huge chunk of inverters all start dumping power onto the grid that isn't synced, things break.
inigyou 7 hours ago [-]
You can't just "not sync the grid". I think what you mean is if all the country's inverters that are curtailed stop being curtailed and pull the grid out of frequency because they control so much power. Note that every inverter as well as every traditional power plant and many substations will disconnect themselves long before reaching 59 or 61Hz - the most you achieve like that is a blackout.
ulfw 22 hours ago [-]
Do people really believe this stuff? Wow
mirekrusin 22 hours ago [-]
Modern data centers can be designed with near-zero direct water consumption. It isn’t fundamentally necessary to consume huge amounts of water to cool computers. What’s the story with those new data centers? Do they actually choose to do evaporative cooling that people are complaining about or people are complaining about problem that doesn’t exist?
ByteOfWood 12 hours ago [-]
They choose evaporative cooling simply because it's cheaper than a closed loop system for energy use and land area.
lokar 19 hours ago [-]
How? In most locations for much of the year you need to reject heat either by evaporating water or using electricity (more water) to run a refrigeration cycle.
vineyardmike 16 hours ago [-]
It doesn’t matter what the actual reality is. People think that data centers waste water, and they don’t like that.
The beef from a single hamburger uses far more water than a year of ChatGPT usage. Few try to reduce consumption in favor of more efficient foods by comparison. It’s about perception.
roncesvalles 16 hours ago [-]
Exactly, this is all a symptom of underinvestment in grid capacity, and datacenter companies having to cobble together whatever electricity source they could get their hands on at the last minute.
It's a complete failure of the state in having any kind of foresight.
China, in comparison, has around 2X excess electric production capacity in their grid. That's what made mining Bitcoin, and now ultra-cheap LLM inference, economically viable.
wegwerper 21 hours ago [-]
A country is but the sum of its people - and this american people have gotten what they voted for.
Nice opportunity for the rest of the world, though.
20 hours ago [-]
blooalien 10 hours ago [-]
> ... and this American people have gotten what they voted for.
Probably one of the biggest flaws of a Democratic system is that a voting majority can mandate a situation that harms literally everyone against the will of everyone else even when those harms are well documented and absolutely provable.
"The majority voted for it" isn't a great answer for the question "Why exactly are we letting the bus driver drive us all over this cliff edge to our fiery deaths?"
"Stop the bus! I want off!"
"Nope. The vote's done. You're stuck with the result."
"Well, what if I voted against driving over the cliff edge?"
"Nope. Majority rules. We all die now."
defrost 9 hours ago [-]
Bear in mind the US electoral system is far from the best that can done.
Not all democracies are equal and the US system is barely "democratic" - it's spiralled in a two party not broadly representative Hotelling's Law swampland.
jstummbillig 14 hours ago [-]
> Those in power seem to think that a compute advantage is necessary to maintain economic advantage. Despite this, the voters universally hate data centers, so much so that both NY and TX have data center construction moratoriums.
I don't understand what "despite this" is doing here. People have thoughts about what good/bad policy should be, independent of what good/bad policy should do all the time.
This is not an argument for or against data centers, but rather against populism. People have too many feeling about too many things, that should simply should not be decided by feel (and, sometimes, not enough about things that should).
cosmic_cheese 20 hours ago [-]
The sense of urgency is strange and feels extremely forced. There’s no way this is all so important that all other concerns automatically go out the window so projects can complete construction yesterday.
It really wouldn’t hurt if the developers involved tried even a little bit to be good neighbors and to select sites where they’re not going to be a nuisance and net negative to adjacent communities at minimum.
The blatantly extractive, externalizing mindset of this all reminds me of the attitude that mining companies have taken towards Appalachian states for over a century at this point.
LogicFailsMe 20 hours ago [-]
Given local grassroots opposition, the data centers are starting to move into less regulated countries where I would gather building them raises the local standard of living, but presents the new challenge of finding people qualified to run them.
vrganj 23 hours ago [-]
The entire planet will lose as ecosystems die out, food and water supplies run low, refugee crises and global conflicts ramp up.
But hey, line go up!
cyanydeez 23 hours ago [-]
Don't worry; republicans are way ahead of that refugee crises by generation fervent far right ethnic nationalism globally, independently of course.
simianwords 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
OlivOnTech 22 hours ago [-]
Do you have any source? The global scientific community and more specifically the GIEC have been saying the opposite for years...
simianwords 22 hours ago [-]
I have been trying to look for sources myself and I feel like this whole sector is rampant with "noble lies".
If you dig into the sources you will find
Economic predictions:
The most serious mainstream institutions[1] will dress it up us an imminent catastrophe as if humanity itself will collapse if we don't do anything. But once you read the real predictions, you will realise that that it they just say things would be better if you had reduced emissions compared to if we did not, but not compared to today (crucially)
Tail risks and irreversible damage:
I have read on tail risks, ecological collapse, species death and all of these models are strange and not supported by the mainstream generally. For example [2] article says that 5% of our species will go extinct by 2100 or so. That means more than 200k species! And in the last 50 years fewer than 1500 or so went extinct and it is not some abnormal number.
I would encourage you to actually read the studies and see what people believe and the models used.
> Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?
Dude, read the first document and then tell me whether they say things will get worse than now or not. They explicitly compare the counterfactual against with or without emissions not against today. This is my issue with this kind of misinformation.
estearum 22 hours ago [-]
Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?
flufluflufluffy 22 hours ago [-]
Both you and the person you replied to are making claims about the future. Neither of them are true.
solenoid0937 22 hours ago [-]
This is just pure histrionics, you have no understanding whatsoever of the scale of data center water consumption, electricity consumption, new capacity coming online, etc.
ddq 9 hours ago [-]
Climate change was already a crisis before the current wave of data center construction, but don't let that stop you from leaving insulting comments.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
How much water does a DC use?
solenoid0937 22 hours ago [-]
Not much. 0.04% of US water production. For context, that's about 3% of the water consumption of our golf courses, and less than 1% of what we use to water our lawns.
loloquwowndueo 21 hours ago [-]
Get off my lawn.
quickthrowman 21 hours ago [-]
All US data center water usage is less than the total water used for golf courses or the total water used to grow alfalfa. Less water used in evaporative cooling means more electricity is used for cooling given that the efficiency almost doubles if you add evaporative cooling to a chilled water loop.
It’s bad to pump non-renewable fossil aquifer water in Arizona for evaporative cooling, but using cooling towers in an area that gets 30” or more of precipitation per year is probably not going to hurt anything.
_DeadFred_ 20 hours ago [-]
The question is does DC building bring added costs to local communities. My small town has a backlog of home builders waiting for permits because of constrained municipal water capacity. We are still paying off the bonds for the last capacity we added. Golf courses/etc are already factored into current costs. Additional new use brings significant cost (bonds to build new capacity), funded by increasing expenses on the entire community, not funded by those who financially benefit from the new build outs.
The issue isn't comparative usage to existing hookups, it's new cost burden on the local community where a data center is built. Which is why DC propogandists switched to the golf course measurement, it confuses the original concern, the cost to the community of new DC hookups to municipal water or the very limited amount (of expensive to the community) available hookups that were intended/funded by the community for other purposes.
maxerickson 19 hours ago [-]
Given the political will, that problem is straightforward to address with the permitting.
HSO 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Permit 22 hours ago [-]
> Despite this, those in power refuse any environmentally aware energy policy nor water policy.
Can you tell me how much water a data center uses? If you have strong opinion on the construction of data centers I hope you can answer this basic question about data centers. (Many opposed to them cannot)
cogman10 22 hours ago [-]
Depends on the cooling system, but around 1 to 9L per kwh. [1]
A lot, but not all, of these datacenters are using evaporative cooling, which is what kicks their water usage so high.
So a 40MW datacenter will consume around 4 million liters of water per day if it is evaporatively cooled.
As a comparison, one acre of alfalfa growing year round in California uses about 5*325000=1,625,000 gallons of water a year for four harvests, 4400 gallons of water per day per acre.
There’s around a million acres of alfalfa grown in California for a total water usage of 1,625,000*1,000,000=1.625×10¹² gallons (or 5 million acre-feet) per year.
365 million gallons of water per year for one data center is 1000 acre feet of water. California’s alfalfa crop uses as much water as 5,000 of these data centers.
quentindemetz 20 hours ago [-]
That the only nation which sent man on the moon uses acre-feet as a unit of volume blows my mind
stockresearcher 19 hours ago [-]
Oh sure, I can help.
1000 acre feet is approximately 40 hectare meters. Or, you know, about 1.2 billion liters.
Over on this side of the ocean, we’ve got freshwater lakes larger than entire European countries. There’s a lake over here, it has an island on it. That island has a lake, which has an island in it. And there’s a lake on that island.
We need units of measurement that represent large things. If you don’t, that’s ok.
Works well in places that need to represent things large and small.
Europe, Canada, Australia, and pretty much everywhere else.
But enjoy your cubic furlongs and tablespoons.
_DeadFred_ 20 hours ago [-]
Do Alfalfa growers traditionally use limited (and funded at large expense by the local community) municipal water hookups to grow their crops? Are alfalfa growers asking for new water hookup permits to access these resources?
Because DCs are, and that is the concern local communities have. Not random comparative statistics whose purpose seems to be to take valid local community concerns and pretend they're just a joke. How much do alfa growers in California add to my water bill? How much will new municipal water hookups by new data centers impact my water bill? One is a valid concern. One is just a BS attempt to discredit the valid concern. Because that is how this shady industry operates. On BS. On manipulation. And they wonder why they are more and more disliked.
cogman10 20 hours ago [-]
It is a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
The reason these DC use so much water is because it uses less electricity to evaporatively cool than it takes to cool with a heat pump.
You are trading water scarcity for energy scarcity.
In my personal opinion, the right tradeoff is more electricity. Also IMO, these DCs should be required to build out solar + battery + wind offset plants which supply their energy either directly or indirectly by selling to the grid operator at a discounted rate. If you want 40MW of power, you need to deploy 40MW of solar (not peak, but yearly average output) and a 400MWh battery plus all the grid hookups required.
The end result for residence should be lower energy bills, not higher bills.
quickthrowman 19 hours ago [-]
> Do Alfalfa growers traditionally use limited (and funded at large expense by the local community) municipal water hookups to grow their crops? Are alfalfa growers asking for new water hookup permits to access these resources?
No, you already know they use flood irrigation.
Why is a municipal water system allowing a data center connection that will strain their distribution network? They’re well within their rights to say no, Mark Zuckerberg isn’t holding a gun to their heads.
cogman10 18 hours ago [-]
> Why is a municipal water system allowing a data center connection that will strain their distribution network? They’re well within their rights to say no, Mark Zuckerberg isn’t holding a gun to their heads.
Deep pockets have a way of bypassing practical concerns. [1]
Zuckerberg likely isn't holding a gun to their heads, instead it's more likely he's putting wads of cash in their pockets.
Assuming that it's surprisingly little and without pollution concerns, then an acceptable and enforceable policy should be a very simple request, no?
Permit 21 hours ago [-]
Yes I agree.
embedding-shape 23 hours ago [-]
So even when xAI (which is now Tesla? Or SpaceX maybe?) was "operating dozens of unregulated gas turbines that worsen the air quality in one of the most polluted parts of the country"[0] this didn't place them above this new Amazon not-even-built-yet data center? Are they competing who can destroy the earth the fastest or what's going on?
It seems wrong that Amazon should get in trouble for this when it was XAI that began this new race to the bottom.
Peoplecheered xAI on and admired how quickly they were able to move, without much regard to the methods or legality. IMO competitors had no choice but to respond in kind when they see XAI not just getting away with it, but also getting a pass on legal issues.
bigmadshoe 13 hours ago [-]
You think Amazon shouldn’t get in trouble for this because someone else did it first?
embedding-shape 22 hours ago [-]
> It seems wrong that Amazon should get in trouble for this when it was XAI that began this new race to the bottom.
Who gives a shit who started it? The ones who continue engaging in it, should clearly be punished as they're working against humanity's best interest of keeping this planet survivable.
If you're one of the largest companies in the world, constantly brag about how environmental friendly you are and how much you care about "sustainability" or what the trendy word is today, and you end up building a data center that sets a record in pollution (either directly or indirectly), you're doing something massively fucked up and are misaligned with the rest of the people on this planet.
> Peoplecheered xAI on and admired how quickly they were able to move, without much regard to the methods or legality. IMO competitors had no choice but to respond in kind when they see XAI not just getting away with it, but also getting a pass on legal issues.
I guess this is what late-stage capitalism gives you ultimately, companies who feel like it's fine doing whatever because competitors are also doing whatever. No one I know have been cheering for anything like that, I suggest if you have people cheering about stuff like that near you, get far away.
cindyllm 21 hours ago [-]
[dead]
disposition2 21 hours ago [-]
Pretty sure it’s “is”, they were operating gas turbines for power and continue to do so
embedding-shape 21 hours ago [-]
So where is the police? They're running turbines they haven't been granted permits to run, if Average Joe did so the police would show up and literally grab the hardware from him, one way or another, or disable it at least. What the fuck are they waiting for?
parineum 20 hours ago [-]
Where are you getting the information that it's unauthorized (or needs to be authorized)?
embedding-shape 20 hours ago [-]
> Where are you getting the information that it's unauthorized (or needs to be authorized)?
One would think if there is even a suspicion (even if it hasn't been ruled in court yet) about large-scale harmful toxic emissions, the police and relevant authorities would at least quickly do some samples or what not, to figure out if they need to put an immediate stop to it until the courts ruled either way.
But seemingly it's still ongoing and no harm no foul?
throwaway173738 19 hours ago [-]
Do you know the difference between civil law and criminal law? The police don’t care if they’re not violating a criminal statute. If you want to test how it works, build a brand new house in a city without pulling any permits.
embedding-shape 18 hours ago [-]
I do indeed. Do you know that severe violations of civil law sometimes amount of up to criminal law, especially if there is evidence of criminal intent or "knowing" violations of the law but proceeding anyway?
This is the case for lots of things. Negligence can turn into "reckless disregard for human life", breach of contract could amount to fraud, and many other cases.
parineum 20 hours ago [-]
The NAACP claims don't amount to facts.
embedding-shape 18 hours ago [-]
Indeed, but they do amount to "suspicion" and are worth investigating instead of saying "Lets wait years until the courts decided if it is or isn't actually polluting" and not shutting it down until they've clearly demonstrated it being safe or not.
orbifold 23 hours ago [-]
All this AI doomerism is hiding the obvious and immediate harm that will cause a mass extinction event. Funnily enough people at Anthropic are predicting the end of the Anthropocene, completely absolving themselves from any responsibility for the actual reality that the Anthropocene is defined by human made geologically noticeable changes. Like causing a global climate catastrophe.
DennisP 20 hours ago [-]
It's possible to have more than one existential risk at a time. We even have a third, since nuclear war doesn't seem completely impossible these days. We probably shouldn't ignore any of them.
roncesvalles 16 hours ago [-]
Nuclear war is hardly an existential risk.
An all-out global nuclear war (all nuclear nations landing 10% of their warheads in populated areas) would be a disruption comparable to COVID at best.
bigmadshoe 13 hours ago [-]
Can you elaborate on this? I’m not an expert at all but this seems so far from true I’m struggling to understand if you’re serious.
Wouldn’t we expect tens of millions of casualties, nuclear fallout rendering large swathes of countries uninhabitable, and ensuing total societal collapse once the globalized western world is separated from their foreign means of production?
DennisP 11 hours ago [-]
Of course you're correct. Here's a 2019 simulation of escalating full-scale war between the US and Russia, done at Princeton based on what's publicly known about actual force postures. Immediate effects would be 34 million dead, 91 million total casualties, and 30 major economic centers destroyed on each side.
Fallout would cause significantly more casualties. Then there are the environmental effects. Science on that has evolved over the past few decades, so wikipedia is a good starting point for an overview.
Since none of this is certain and we're talking about risks, considering the worst cases seems appropriate, and those involve agricultural collapse, several billion dead, mass extinction, and an ozone hole covering most of the planet. It might not kill off the human species, but modern civilization would struggle to recover.
11 hours ago [-]
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
Mass extinction event already happened though. Most known species became extinct because of humans.
KellyCriterion 14 hours ago [-]
It is the paperclip AI scenario:
The AI is cheating humans to produce only one thing - but in reality today, its not paperclibs, but datacenters as "the most important product": So the scenario still holds :-D
ianm218 21 hours ago [-]
The existential risk people are worried about a much shorter timeline - like the next 5-10 years. Climate change is serious but very unlikely to lead to anything like ending the Anthropocene in the next 5 years.
ch0wn 20 hours ago [-]
400,000 people in Europe are displaced. Pretending that this is a future issue is tremendously disingenuous. Things don't need to be civilisation-ending to cause a degree of harm that is worth focusing on.
ianm218 19 hours ago [-]
The OP is literally talking about “mass extinction”, it’s not a real concern that climate change will cause mass extinction in the next 5 years.
It should absolutely be focused on anyway. I don’t know how you got the other impression. The US gov paying to stop windmills and solar is insane.
jstummbillig 23 hours ago [-]
Note that this is about absolute pollution, not relative to power output. Pollution is high, because power output is high. Relatively, for what it's worth, it's just a fairly normal gas plant.
So the most interesting thing to take away from this: There is a lot of demand for more power and in this instance it's satisfied by gas. Which is still much better than coal. Which is still much worse than renewables.
t0mas88 23 hours ago [-]
Luckily the Trump administration has just paid over a billion dollars for the second time to stop a renewable energy project...
lokar 19 hours ago [-]
Mostly because coal is more expensive and slower to build
brikym 21 hours ago [-]
On this map I can't see _any_ nuclear under construction in the US yet the rest of the world seems to be building many.
When a man has a hammer everything is a gas turbine. GEV stock has treated me well but I'd much rather nuclear was winning.
It's a catch22 problem because nuclear is much slower to build than a data center so there is no demand from the data centers. And the nuclear plant doesn't know the demand will be there in 5 years once with gas soaking up demand. So the build it and they will come strategy is risky. Building infrastructure is like a muscle that gets stronger with repetitions. The cost will only come down once some are built but nobody wants to build at the current high prices. Govt help is needed to kick start it.
DOE is investing heavily in SMRs right now. There's 4 which have reached criticality so far. Chris Wright the DOE head is a o&g political appointee hack, but the career employees at DOE are working on pushing clean energy forward.
The world isn’t building nuclear power. It’s simply too slow to build and expensive to be relevant.
brikym 13 hours ago [-]
That's not true though. China has ~20 plants under construction.
skrause 10 hours ago [-]
In 2025 China built 696 TWh of new wind + solar power and 13 TWh of new nuclear power. So to a first approximation it's fair to say that even China isn't really building out nuclear power anymore.
kristianp 9 hours ago [-]
Great comment. China is still building Coal and Gas power too, I wonder how they compare.
progbits 23 hours ago [-]
Most polluting power plant so far
This race to the bottom will have plenty more to give us in the coming years.
xnx 21 hours ago [-]
Aren't coal power plants waaaay more polluting than natural gas? Not just in terms of C02, but also really nasty stuff like particulates, sulphur, and metals?
It's very trendy right now to get mad at datacenters, but I'd much rather energy come from natural gas than from an existing coal power plant. (Obviously, renewables would be better than either.)
DennisP 20 hours ago [-]
The nasty stuff, yes. Regarding greenhouse gases, natural gas has turned out to be about as bad as coal once you account for methane leaks, and the industry has strenuously resisted any decent mitigation for that.
burnt-resistor 15 hours ago [-]
Different. Burn enough natural gas in enough gas turbines, and significant quantities of formaldehyde and NOx will be created.
RobotToaster 22 hours ago [-]
Who could have predicted that Microsoft building their own nuclear reactor would be the lesser evil.
IsTom 21 hours ago [-]
Until they apply what that did to Github's uptime
andrepd 20 hours ago [-]
Nuclear reactors are a notoriously clean and safe method of electricity generation.
mocana 23 hours ago [-]
Ok. A serious question.
I frequently hear that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity. Then why are they using gas turbines? Is it because they can generate more power with a smaller real estate footprint?
lee_ars 22 hours ago [-]
Texas specifically has heavily politicized and demonized wind power, in spite of having massive successes with it prior to 2016 and being a leading producer of it. Solar isn't as bad, but is still seen as "leftist." The political landscape in TX is vastly more friendly to natural gas.
In other words, they are using gas turbines because the politicians are stupid.
yonaguska 22 hours ago [-]
They are using gas because it's more reliable during peak usage. Wind generation in Texas isn't optimal throughout the entire state and conditions aren't optimal all the time. They still use wind, but from a pure numbers perspective, gas infra already exists, the gas is there, and gas is more reliable, so wind isn't always the cheapest form of energy. There are also diminishing returns on just adding more wind turbines.
preg_match 20 hours ago [-]
Gas is also incredibly cheap in Texas. Way, way cheaper than you would think. In some parts, it's negative price - you will be paid to use it. We have entirely too much gas, which is actually a problem because ideally we want to discourage its use.
So yes, wind and solar are cheap. Depending on where in Texas you are, gas is cheaper.
s1artibartfast 19 hours ago [-]
Texas leads the nation in solar installed and solar planned.
How do you reconcile that with your theory?
cwal37 14 hours ago [-]
*utility-scale solar, not solar overall
s1artibartfast 13 hours ago [-]
Utility scale, solar installs, and will be total solar by end of year.
Texas accounts for 40% of new solar capacity installed per year at this point.
It does lag behind an inefficient and expensive rooftop solar, and has no State mandate for homeowners to build it.
That said, I think this is enough to show that Texas doesn't hate solar, so there's probably a different reason for selecting gas to support the data center. If I were to Hazard I guess, it would be stability and demand curve
Texas is not at all against renewables. Maybe, just maybe, whatever axes the people building data centers are optimizing on rule out solar/wind over factors other than "renewables are for leftists, so fuck that we're gonna burn gas even if it's more expensive."
lee_ars 21 hours ago [-]
> I think you might want to download new anti-Texas talking points.
No need—the current ones are uploaded directly into my mailbox regularly by Randy Weber, my district rep.
shakna 22 hours ago [-]
15th for non-residential? Sounds like people overwhelmingly put it on their roofs, and politicians avoid it.
infecto 21 hours ago [-]
Did you miss the 1st utility part? It can be quite hard for nonresidential users to retrofit for solar. Not impossible but sometimes not an easy solve.
shakna 8 hours ago [-]
Sorry, I do have a bias.
> 11.40% of TX electricity is from solar
This is... Not a huge statement to me. My home state is at 16% solar, and we're calling it inadequate. [0] Its not a 1-to-1, as we have probably 10% of the people, and 1/3 of the landmass. More spread out, different demand, so a completely different landscape.
Avoid it to the tune of being in the top third (for now, they're projected to keep growing), behind only blue states that are known for aggressive rollout and/or climates that are overall more favorable (i.e., Texas gets its fair share of sun but not quite like CA and NV, for example)? Is that your idea of avoiding it because politicians want to own the libs?
andyjohnson0 21 hours ago [-]
I often wonder why conservatives have such a problem with renewable energy.
I can certainly believe that oil and gas pay better bribes, and that this incentivises a certain kind of politician who seem to be over-represented among conservatives in the US. But that doesn't explain the widespread dislike among the conservative end of the general population. Is it just groupthink or Overton Window -nudging using social media? Or is there something more psychological going on? Some kind of disgust reaction?
andrepd 20 hours ago [-]
One would think that self-proclaimed "conservatives" would like to conserve the natural world... Long gone are the days of Teddy Roosevelt that's for sure.
infecto 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
hahahaa 22 hours ago [-]
What if..... the USA had a national grid and what if.... they connected solar and wind across the country and for kicks, invested in storage.
infecto 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
inigyou 21 hours ago [-]
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit.
infecto 21 hours ago [-]
Eh you are posting hyperbole that has nothing to do with this thread. I made a single quip while furthering my position. Posting rules like you are doing are even worse. You have a downvote.
defrost 21 hours ago [-]
The person you are replying to is not the person that made "the Reddit style posts".
infecto 21 hours ago [-]
Replace Reddit with hyperbolic statements that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. There was a wave of high points less than 1 year old accounts posting highly hyperbolic statements that had nothing to do with the topic or were so far off from how physics works that it’s a bit silly. The person I responded to is only posting because I disagreed with them in this thread elsewhere.
Going back to the original rule the point is to not have endless meta discussions. I am skirting it imo but I included rationale for my argument.
But instead of continuing a meta discussion the better option for someone like you would be to downvote it.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
Trump paid a wind farm company $1,200,000,000 of taxpayer money to stop building a wind farm
infecto 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lee_ars 21 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
infecto 21 hours ago [-]
The personal jab was unnecessary. If it’s because I called out your hyperbole it might have been better to try to educate me instead of trying to name call or be rude in every sentence. Hard to even read your response it starts so low. Sorry!
You’re also mixing up Texas energy policy with the engineering requirements of an AI data center. Those are different discussions.
The claim that Texas wind generation is “back to 2017 levels” isn’t supported by the data. Texas continues to add large amounts of wind and especially solar. Solar has been dominating though as a percentage of generation and wind has fallen behind. Wind input costs are up quite a bit since 2017-2021 era. I am sure some of this might have political motivations but if the economics are in solar companies are going to build solar farms.
The original point still stands: if you need guaranteed 24/7 on site power for a massive data center, gas turbines are a much more practical solution than trying to achieve the same reliability with wind, solar, and batteries. Your post is just a political derailment that does not hit why Amazon did what they did.
swiftcoder 23 hours ago [-]
Under current administration, I'm not even sure its possible to build out green energy for this sort of thing at scale - this article[1] was on the front page just yesterday
Sure, you don't pay millions of dollars in engineering for a permit you obviously aren't going to be able to get. That's a big part of the problem, they're unpredictable.
jillesvangurp 20 hours ago [-]
Because the US has some policies that make those currently more expensive than they should be while. A combination of tariffs, removal of incentives for local producers, etc. has caused prices to be higher than they could be. All of this is because of fossil fuel lobby funded campaigns for exactly this to happen.
The flip side of course is that gas turbines are in short supply and manufacturers are in no hurry to build out production capacity for what is effectively obsolete technology with a very uncertain future. A lot of the projects being announced may never get delivered for the simple reason that there are long waiting lists for these things.
And there is the notion that related investments might end up under water when the few plants that do get built start struggling economically in ten years or so. These are not very attractive long term investments. The short term interest in securing any capacity at all is overriding this. Of the well over a hundred GW of data centers planned until 2035, probably only less than a 30-40% will actually get built; if not less. Michael Liebreich is predicting only about 35GW will be realized. His estimate is that there simply is no more production capacity that can be committed than that.
It will be interesting to see if this Amazon plant actually gets built. For now Amazon can afford to gamble on this and just write it off if it doesn't work out.
If policy changes in a few years, I expect a lot of these projects to get unceremoniously cancelled when it turns out that they are a combination of under water financially and behind on schedule because of component shortages anyway. Also, it only takes a few failed projects for everyone to get cold feet. Premature closures of new gas plants could happen if renewables get cheap enough. Those are already happening in some places.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
For a DC it's probably reliability. You need wind to be spread over a large area to even out random changes in power availability. And, obviously, solar power works during the day.
atonse 14 hours ago [-]
But this is essentially a solved problem even at utility scale, with renewables + battery banks, right? This isn't cutting edge stuff.
DGAP 22 hours ago [-]
Renewables require storage because they are bursty - sun goes down, wind stops blowing. This is more expensive than just burning as much nat gas as you need.
fallingbananna 20 hours ago [-]
Presumably, the data center usage could also be bursty, right?
More people will be using AI during the (work)day, than at midnight. Then they could do half solar, half gas.
Also "more expensive" when it comes to solar isn't meaningful until you also consider timeframe. Solar panels pay themselves off in a few years, and after that they basically generate "free" electricity. Gas never becomes cheaper or free, every year it will cost money.
hahahaa 9 hours ago [-]
I doubt it will be bursty.
First: global usage.
Next: I even wonder why frontiers labs don't sell batch processing and spot prices to keep 100% utilisation. If they do that and I suspect they will it will be 24/7 maxxed.
Imagine this: Fable at 98% discount because but you need to wait. Then imagine: bots that scan your tickets for easy low priority tasks to do when those cheap tokens come.
Let alone research batch compute needs. Training and so on.
One concept will drive this shift: GAAP profitability.
DennisP 20 hours ago [-]
AWS is heavily used worldwide, not just in the US. The same goes for the big AI companies.
Timeframe is accounted for if you look at levelized cost per kWh. The levelized cost of natural gas is 5 to 11 cents/kWh. In the sunniest spots, the levelized cost of solar with enough battery storage to provide 24/7 power is about the same, if you want >90% reliability. The usual four hours of storage is only enough to account for the "duck curve" during the day.
Solar and batteries keep getting cheaper so hopefully they will be clear winners soon, at least in sunny areas.
hahahaa 22 hours ago [-]
How is it more expensive? Any links? Once built out yeah there is maintainance but no need to drill baby drill anymore.
therealdrag0 19 hours ago [-]
The cost of energy varies widely based on regional factors, geography, existing energy portfolio makeup, etc. Additionally cost is not just the unit price but the price overtime to support a specific SLA.
Texas has very cheap gas; it’s also good for solar. They are very competitive price wise, so it’s kinda depressing they are using gas. But it’s probably a slight price edge plus better reliability.
20 hours ago [-]
matkoniecz 22 hours ago [-]
gas turbines are not intermittent
> I frequently hear that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity
presumably they put zero value on stable production or count subsidies as income
unnamed76ri 22 hours ago [-]
You need a ton of land for solar and no renewable is as reliable as fossil fuels.
Zero data on Greenhouse gas CO2-equivalent per kWh. A combined-cycle gas power plant is going to have lower impact per kWh than the 200+ coal plants in the US.
deadlast2 19 hours ago [-]
I am sure if these guys worked on it they could have better PR. It is like AI is the modern version of the oil industry.
gizajob 20 hours ago [-]
really time for these companies to have to switch to options like Nuclear SMR from providers like Rolls Royce who already have the megawatt solutions ready in the market, which don't release giant volumes of CO2 which we cannot afford.
Animats 14 hours ago [-]
7 GW! All California load is 35GW right now.
mrpopo 20 hours ago [-]
Divest all your stocks from all this AI data-center race bullshit, invest into renewable projects. Worst case, the orange buffoon will bail you out with taxpayer money to prevent the US grid from being too clean or something. Only money talks in the US.
Now no one talks about global warming and climate change.
llm_nerd 22 hours ago [-]
A lot of new data centres have been announced in Alberta, Canada. Which is a weird location given that Alberta has a derelict power grid that can barely serve the current load, and runs almost entirely on fossil fuels.
Meta, for instance, plans a $13B data centre in Sturgeon County.
They all plan on powering them by building massive natural gas generating stations with each. In a free for all race to destroy the environment and doom humanity (aside from your plutocrats who'll live in their bunkers). Until a week or so ago Meta still had a clean energy pledge, but finally they just abandoned that silly greenwashing lie: https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/meta-quits-clean-e...
We are basically in the end game now, and despite that weird guy running through these comments telling everyone how great everything is going to be in a hundred years, things are looking utterly grim.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
Oh, Alberta. That makes sense. Land of pissed off coal miners, isn't it?
rjrjrjrj 19 hours ago [-]
Much more the land of oil and gas. Alberta no longer burns coal for electricity.
The dominant political party frames natural gas as "clean", because it isn't a dirty as coal; and Alberta natural gas in particular as "ethical", because not Russia or Saudi.
croes 23 hours ago [-]
If we reach AGI at some point, it will wonder why we are so dumb
vrganj 23 hours ago [-]
If we ever reach it, it will tell us "you destroyed any chance of survival in your quest to get to me first, dipshits."
vrganj 23 hours ago [-]
It is insane how we're accelerating the climate catastrophe in an ideology-driven race to be king of the ashes.
Capitalism is a death cult, AI capitalism doubly so.
simianwords 23 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
vrganj 22 hours ago [-]
Europe is burning, rivers are at all time lows, new temperature records ar being set every year, oceans are rising and you have the gall to demand we ignore the obvious?
Please share your sources saying it's not getting worse.
simianwords 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Jansemon 21 hours ago [-]
What do you mean, "nowhere does it say that things get worse overall"? Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress (to say it mildly) and failing!?
Do you really believe, that the way humans are using resources and polluting everything, doesn't have any negative impact?
And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?
And your OECD study: doesn't it specifically talk about economic impact if climate change measures ARE being implemented (especially emission reductions)? This of course makes sense, as this would imply massive investments in technologies and sectors. This source specifically does not make a case for climate change being not as bad as predicted or that it doesn't take place.
Looking at the current state of the world (especially ecosystems, which are extremely important for us), I really wonder how someone can make an argument, that it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. It is often way worse, as many things aren't really talked about in the open.
parineum 20 hours ago [-]
> Do you need to get it explicitly spelled out for you to realize that the environment and ecosystems everywhere are under extreme stress
That's anthropomorphizing. The ecosystem cannot be stressed because it has no natural/good state.
> And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?
Because people predict life will eventually get worse. Your scenario is why people are making bad long term decisions (according to you) but the reason it's a bad long term choice is because it's supposed to lead to bad outcomes for humanity. GDP is a pretty decent measure of quality of life.
If the climate gets worse but quality of life gets better, it's not quite the catastrophe that's often claimed.
Not OP but that's the point being made.
Essentially you're both talking about different things. you're saying the environment will be worse and OP is saying we'll be better off.
You're also saying a worse environment will make us worse of but not backing that up with data. OP is. That data might be bad but I haven't seen you say anything that would make me doubt it but the OECD has overseen a period of immense improvement of all the measures OP is talking about.
OPs argument is that climate change might kill a billion people but the energy used that creates that climate change created two billion people with better lives.
throwaway173738 19 hours ago [-]
The natural state of an ecosystem is one in which my native trees aren’t dying back every year until they get killed by massive insect infestations because they can’t access enough water to protect themselves in the summer anymore.
simianwords 16 hours ago [-]
You care more about the beauty of the environment than people’s lives. It’s all about aesthetics for you. If you cared about lives you would bring up statistics.
vrganj 16 hours ago [-]
I brought up enough statistics in the other thread. You have not answered.
simianwords 15 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mft_ 22 hours ago [-]
Have you tried to satisfy your open-minded curiosity on this question?
A couple of excerpts from the front page, without even registering to access the full report:
1.1.5 Heat-related mortality
Failure to curb the warming effects of climate change has seen the rate of heat-related deaths surge 23% since the 1990s, to 546,000 a year.
1.2.1 Wildfires
The risk of wildfires is growing: 2024 saw a record-high 154,000 estimated deaths from wildfire smoke-derived small particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5)
sajithdilshan 21 hours ago [-]
One could argue that heat related deaths could be due to the fact that there are more old people alive right now compared to any point in time in human history due to high life expectancy and they are the most vulnerable to heatwaves. Had the percentage of younger population been higher, the numbers would have been different. Also in a way it’s Karma, that older population is the one that lived their lives like there’s no future and thought that climate change is a problem for younger generations and now they would be the first to die like flies
mft_ 18 hours ago [-]
So... having given two contradictory opinions, which one are you settling on?
sajithdilshan 15 hours ago [-]
I would let Mother Nature take its course and bring balance. After all you reap what you sow
simianwords 13 hours ago [-]
this is one of the worst positions to take and accepting no agency in the process.. and making out "nature" to be some mysterious persona that has a balancing effect for some reason
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
Why would you measure the goodness of the future in GDP?
cumshitpiss 20 hours ago [-]
[dead]
vrganj 21 hours ago [-]
The whole is nothing but the sum of specifics.
The oceans are boiling [0], marine life is dying [1]. Land close to the water will be land under water soon [2]. The ice caps are melting and setting free all sorts of diseases. [3]
Large parts of our planet on fire all the time now, here's one from Australia from this year [4], but I'm sure you've read about wildfires in Spain and France this year, Australia last year, California every year, Greece last year etc etc.
Rivers in Europe are at an all-time low [5], nuclear power plants need to shut down because they can't be cooled anymore. [6]
It takes deep ideological commitment to close ones eyes to the obvious.
But life expectancy is highest and stil increasing. Do you have any proof this trend would reverse?
vrganj 14 hours ago [-]
That model assumes no major external factors changing.
You think life expectancy will stay the same when forests burn down, we run out of water and crops, conflicts start everywhere, cities start flooding, we get more and more storms, energy crises because we have to shut down power plants etc etc?
You're basing your read on wayyyy too simplistic a metric that compresses true life expectancy into something not accounting for most meaningful dimensions.
simianwords 13 hours ago [-]
>You think life expectancy will stay the same when forests burn down, we run out of water and crops, conflicts start everywhere, cities start flooding, we get more and more storms, energy crises because we have to shut down power plants etc etc?
It will go up. The rest of the third world is at very low life expectancy and the next 100 years will involve a lot of progress for them. You have not shown me any evidence that it will go down.
k33n 19 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
vrganj 19 hours ago [-]
This is precisely the ideologically driven blindness that is a symptom of said death cult.
throwaway87411 23 hours ago [-]
Communism dried up the third largest lake in the world just for irrigation (while starving tens of millions in the meantime).
RobotToaster 22 hours ago [-]
The irrigation plan was in response to the famine, and it worked, it was the last famine in the soviet union.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
also the soviet union was totalitarian, not communist
Hikikomori 22 hours ago [-]
We only have two options.
s900mhz 22 hours ago [-]
No one mentioned communism?
k33n 19 hours ago [-]
The person you’re replying to did, when he pointed out that a communist regime wasted a ton of water.
eth0up 22 hours ago [-]
I think I get your point; that the inverse of corrupt (I call it fake) capitalism is not necessarily communism, or something reactive. It might just be a system that works better, even if we have not named it yet...
CamWebsites 45 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
trentor 21 hours ago [-]
Downvote me all you want. China is doing something right. Nuclear, renewables, whatever the mix, they're not parking gas turbines next to a data center and calling it a power strategy. That US tech companies reached for that first tells you everything. Speed over consequences, every time. And shut up about that China still fires a lot of coal. They are phasing it out... the right way.
solenoid0937 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
sieabahlpark 22 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jeffrallen 22 hours ago [-]
You know, we don't actually have to do this. The people could block the gates and prevent the delivery of the turbines. The local fire department could fail their inspection and prevent the gas from being turned on. The UPS could "mysteriously" go up in smoke during it's commissioning.
None of this is preordained. We, the phyical persons, can choose how we want to live, and what constraints the corporate persons must accept.
hollow-moe 22 hours ago [-]
All this at the very low cost of: your job.
You can't have an unbreachable blockade 24/7 in front of there, very soon they'd send police to disperse. Fire dept has to justify the failing, if everything up to code and the inspector make it fail it will delay for at most a week and the guy will lose his credibility. The guys delivering and installing the UPS are just trying to make a living too, destroying the thing will get them fired while only delaying a little the time getting another delivered. You are replaceable.
inigyou 22 hours ago [-]
Do you think the rest of your life will be of very high quality in any scenario?
techgnosis 14 hours ago [-]
Yeah if you want to end up in the US penal system. I assure you, you do not. I know I don't.
octocop 23 hours ago [-]
Bitcoin received a lot of backslash due to its power usage and ecological footprint. It's obvious that HN users don't have the same criticisms towards AI data centers. Maybe someone with a short position will coordinate that communication soon..
pawelmurias 22 hours ago [-]
Bitcoin was just purely wasting power for a token only used for crime and speculation.
k33n 19 hours ago [-]
It’s worth noting that the ideological drive to create more energy-neutral crypto schemes resulted in trillions of dollars in fraud and no value created. Same as it always is with climate extremism. Always a cash grab.
goatlover 18 hours ago [-]
What is climate extremism? Because it doesn't seem like the world is actually doing much to combat climate change as we see more fires and more extreme weather while still clinging to the old fossil fuel economy as long as possible.
Despite this, those in power refuse any environmentally aware energy policy nor water policy. Despite this, companies have been trying to be environmentally aware for either moral or marketing purposes to get social permission to build DCs. Despite this, companies are “forced” to build their own “dirty” power sources since political power is disrupting green energy build out. Despite this, demand is still high so that compute costs are continuing to rise. Despite this, our economy is increasingly predicated on a few companies using more compute than geopolitical rivals with cheaper electricity. Despite this, those in power are, again, unwilling to create a compromising policy (aka clean energy) that voters actually would demand before tolerating more DCs.
What’s going to lose first? Voters/environment, politicians/the oil lobby, big tech, or the overall american economy?
Energy is big money. Anything that disrupts the status quo is immediately vilified. It got to the point that our major party at the time lead a “gas fired” green energy policy.
They got voted out, the new guys implemented a subsidised home battery policy. In the space of a year it has destroyed the economics of a carbon fuelled grid. All the economics pointing to renewables being the way forward were proven correct.
Everyone gets their back scratched. If you’re a consumer and you invested, you have a massively discounted personal power station that generates you money. If you operate the grid, your transmission costs and peak transmission costs went down. General consumer prices went down because of a reduction in peak electricity use driving up retail costs. Everyone in won.
Except big gas, who cannot turn a profit on a renewable success story. Don’t let rhetoric become your reality.
As if the established industry has no incentive in the opposite direction? Everyone is going to act in their best interests in this system, that's how it's designed, the whole point of government is to mediate the system in the best interests of the whole.
I'd have to say there are lots people who do not believe the government is acting in their best interests. Its one of the reasons why Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" party has gained a lot of traction.
If only.
Chevron’s Gorgon project will be ongoing for decades and making money hand over fist flogging LNG out of Australia to overseas customers.
It'll be a massive source of previously sequestered CO2 and claimed to be "the largest CO2 sequestration project on the planet* .. with the minor catch of (re-) stashing away a very very tiny portion of the CO2 released. Something, something, not let it out in the first place?
Still, could be worse, at least they're not planning on fracking the Kimberley.
Oh, wait: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh9IkUUgaww
I'm not sure how to feel about this. CO2 sequestration sounds good in theory. But...
Well the tax payer, would be paying the 30% subsidy for Home Battery deployments, which I understand is severeral $Billion 8.5 AU at present.
One group of loosers will be people who can not afford to participate in this program. It would seem another group would be users who cannot shift their electrity demands from peak times when electricty will become quite expensive.
I suspect after they are quite widely deployed. Government could change conditions in future that they must be available as virtual power plant (VPP)
There has been a rush on these since people want access to cheaper power and they believe to avoid the power increases to come. That there will be big increases in power , especially during peak time is the forced introduction of smart meters which allow easy tariff change etc ....
The timeline is several years
What now?
Where in Australia have consumer prices gone down?
> because of a reduction in peak electricity use driving up retail costs
I don’t understand what you’re trying to day here.
> Power prices to fall for most customers, with bigger drops for businesses
> What is driving [lower prices] is a reduction in the cost of producing electricity. We've seen a lot more batteries and solar systems come into the electricity market in the last 12 months. They've been making the market much less volatile," Ms Savage said.
> "We've not needed as much gas and hydro generation in the evening peaks, and that's what's really cut that cost of wholesale generation."
An article from a month and a half in the past.
Still waiting.
A bit misleading comment .. Yes , but after prices went up from renewables
What's going to replace it? Rapidly aging China?
https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80...
https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=80...
https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=600,quality=10...
Using the age profile of a country with over a billion people to dismiss its geopolitical power has no credibility.
More appropriate to point out their (our) lack of domestic chip production and outsourcing of critical technologies.
The first two charts are for GDP, which correlates pretty well with geopolitical power. Moreover if we're going by population, wouldn't that imply India, and then later Africa are going to be superpowers?
A "in general" correlates with geopolitical power doesn't necessary mean you can point at a specific case look at their GDP and come to a good conclusion. Especially not if it's as much of a special case as China.
> wouldn't that imply India, and then later Africa are going to be superpowers?
which might actually happen. If the US falls further from grace and the situations stays like that for a few decades, or the US and another huge power (e.g. China) fall into some costly conflict then India or a union of African countries have a serious chance to become a world super power.
---
=> But more relevantly this discussion is going into red hering argument direction:
- No one argued that you should go _only_ by population, the argument is, that if a country with a gigantic population shrinks hugely they still have enough people left to wage large scale wars.
- Similar no one (should) argue that GDP is by itself meaningful for such an assessment, it's one imperfect not supper reliable statistical point. Especially given how things move wrt. dark factories (i.e. fully automated => no light one as no human there), AI and similar. Yes, if GDP is supper low or high that says a lot, but a lot is not everything and a average GDP for decade long trends in a word looking to face a major time of change means not much in any direction.
- Similar we are speaking about decade long developments, current military strength ist also just another non fully reliable indicator. E.g. Germany post WW1 had close to actual 0/no military strength, and then there was WW2 just a few years later...
and it's not China being hadwaving "special" but the measurement you are applying really not working well for a country which is only half capitalist and half planed economy. Which is a separate argument from dark factories which is about (non low end) production in China getting increasingly decoupled from human worker and in turn is way less affected from a population collapse then it would be in other countries. This has nothing to do with robot armies, an argument you just made up, even if China would lose half their population they still had more people and in turn can theoretically man a larger army _even if they have a by % much larger population collapse_, they don't need any Robot army. Similar no one said their system is superior. Or do you mean the US, as a two party system with an extremely powerful president is something some would call semi authoritarian. Either way China having done some pretty effective decisions in recent years in some areas doesn't in any way mean it's the better system. Like a Monarch can do grate decisions, but Monarchy is still is a very bad system.
Either way I also can't follow you how you jump from a listing of rough facts to there supposedly being a fact free zone.
What there isn't is a single simpel conclusion.
I mean it's a discussion where a single bad decision of a larger power can easily cause a unpredictable chain reaction which completely changes what are and aren't likely outcomes.
The world is inherently complex and not everything has a simple black/white conclusion, actually most things don't have one. You can only look at all available metrics and do a guess what the future will bring.
Conventionally, a continent isn't a superpower. A country is.
US government is working overtime to make sure legacy technologies stay around while the rest of the world is investing into the future.
It also had the support of a lot of the population of the areas it controlled and at least toleration by the majority. Most of its colonial civil service and military were people fro the colonies.
"Rest of the world"? Europe isn't even a player in the AI race. China might be better placed, but they also lag the US in terms of model development and capital deployed. They've been catching up, but that's not the same as "[American will] be in a similar place to Canada at best". That would require a lot of things to go right for China and/or a lot of things to go wrong for the US.
AI will not make it easier to build a house, to harvest a corn field, to assemble a car. AI will not improve weather forecasting accuracy- this is already pretty much 99.999% solved. So AI will not improve standards of living.
All this to conclude that China’s standards of living will improve while America’s will stagnate (or worse)
But sure, go ahead and enjoy those AI videos-some of them are even funny.
>"Rest of the world"? Europe isn't even a player in the AI race.
I think the legacy technology he is referring to is the more about the electrical generation method rather than the AI use of that electricity.
I'm not sure if I'm mis-reading your comment, but:
The idea that you "need a single extremely powerful country to replace it or the US will stay in its position" just doesn't add up. I'm not fully sure if that is what you meant but I have seen that argument a few times.
_There doesn't need to be a replacement._
For most of the worlds history there wasn't a single leading world supper power, just regional super powers, or supper powers in specific sectors.
And if we speak about who could become a supper power _after the US stops being one and there isn't one for some decades_. Then there are a bunch of candidates.
E.g. China has a population collapse issues, but due to it's cut throat ruthless government and total population number and lead in factory automation might be from all countries with similar problems by margin the most likely to overcome it without power collapse.
E.g. the EU might have many issues (as it's members has many issues) but the general concept has proven hugely successful. And what people forget is EU is the cherry on top of a huge stack of treaties which can be extended to 3rd parties independent of full EU membership. Like e.g. Canada, which doesn't plan to become an EU member, but might join some of this treaties as result of the non stop hostility from the US. Same for military treaties between NATO members which are independent of NATO like e.g. JEF, which would likely be open for letting Canada join. Anyway way to many words. But the end result may be a world supper power which is not one entity but a complex lossy coupled network of countries.
Then there have been some other cross country unions and countries, which want to gain super power relevance but have so far been too irrelevant due to a combination of corruption, bad luck and sabotage by existing powers etc. But if we speak about going for a few decades without any leading super power and maybe prime canidates harming each other (e.g. a US <-> Chineese war) then they do actually have a chance.
The OP goes further than merely claiming that US will lose its spot as the top power. It claims it won't be a world power at all:
>in 50 years America won't be a world power any more. It'll be in a similar place to Canada at best
For reference, Canada ranks #11 in GDP, below Russia and even Brazil. On military spending it ranks #16, below Poland and Spain. It doesn't have nukes. To suggest US will ever come close to that in 50 years is laughable.
which is very much possible
50 years once just a blink in human history is today enough to have 2 major industrial revolutions
nukes are not an argument for anything but main land defense from invasions
Look Russia, it was considered on of the most powerful countries military wise and cleanly in the top 10 economically. Many treated it as a 3rd place behind USA/China. It probably will be neither military nor economically overly relevant in 10 years. Through comparing a war economy with peace economies by most normal usable standards (e.g. GDP) isn't very meaningful. Yes it has nukes, no one will invade it (in a traditional large scale sense out side of some border conflict). But it's economy looks like the kind of war economy which leads to a complete economical collapse once the war ends (i.e. burning core substance) end while it's military could be very experienced now, by treating soldiers as highly disposable its unclear how much that actually is true.
Now look at the US, it has lost the majority of soft power thanks to incompetence (and it was maybe the nation with the most effective soft power). It has alienated most of it's allies, especially it's closest allies. Both from a military and economical POV. It's highly dependent on China, and tries to change that have shown very mid to bad outcomes. On the other hand China is increasingly less dependent on it (and the EU) and increasingly less attackable by sea blockades and other non-hot war counter measures the US had. It's behind on automated production. Countries are increasingly less willing to tolerate US bases on their ground which are essential for it being able to project power. The economy is increasingly dependent on a few pillars, which are strong but can crack anyway. The might claim AI leadership, but practically it looks like the price they payed to get there is one which not only will not pay of but can not pay off, it's just way to high. War is also increasingly going back to ways where even if you have superiority the cost of waging it is still severely high, in such a situation you can't force leadership by military force, if you try it likely will end similar to Germany in WW1. Lastly the internal instability Trump has brought by dismantling checks and balances and arbitrary gutting of programs which turned out pretty essential for stability is bad enough to argue things like a putsch series or civil war being _realistic possibilities_ (not guaranteed at all, but possible where it wasn't realistically possible before).
If you put everything together the US dropping temporary out of the top 10 of overall most powerful countries is, not very likely but, very much possible.
It does have absurd geographical advantages, and nukes to make sure it keeps them basically for ever (as long as it doesn't splinter which isn't very likely tbh.). So the drop would be most likely be temporary at most.
Still it is possible, it's the price to pay for first squandering all trust/goodwill gained from WW2 over a few decades of greedy, egoistic, egocentric, ethical catastrophic politics. And then going complete "unpredictable, untrustable, instabile, high risk, publicly considering to start war with NATO or at least half of the EU (JEF+some others)" in recent years.
Also, sorry but the economist hates China with a passion, you really shouldn’t believe a thing they say on the topic.
Note I'm just linking charts and figures, not their editorials. It's ironic that you accuse "economist hates China with a passion", but the best refutation you can come up with is some handwaving about future robot armies. How do we know you're not just hating US (or loving China) with a passion?
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-POPULATION/AGING/gdpzao...
There's so many ways to slice the data, I'm not sure there's an apples-to-apples comparison between US and China. However, it's fair to say both economies face demographic headwinds.
If Canada was a US state it would rank around 4th or 5th in terms of economic size and power. There's a lot of doomerism, but I seriously doubt the US is going to lose its top 4 or 5 economies in the next 50 years.
If you want to go really doomer, then I think it's actually more likely that Canada would become a US state instead of the US economy shrinking to the size of Canada.
But this is all nonsense talk anyway.
It's hard to see how much worse it could get, short of outright invasion or allying with Russia.
Just this week, amongst other news:
* America's useless adventures in Iran have used up so many Patriot missiles there aren't any left to defend Kyiv against Russian missiles, while Iran is still firmly in control of the Straits of Hormuz.
* Meddling in Greenland went up a notch with landing equipment to start oil drilling.
* State Department funding MAGA-oriented "free speech" disinformation campaigns in the UK.
* The revival of Trump's tariffs under the hypocritical guise of guarding against slave labour. Especially when the US prison system is such a large domestic source of slave labour.
Zero trust left here. Zero desire to visit the US ever again.
I wouldn't have expected a famous singer to make such a song, given that America was always portrayed in italian pop music with a positive image, and negative views were relegated to mostly political groups or singers with political themes
- MAGA who doesn't care what Europe thinks - not-MAGA who are just as shocked and disappointed as everyone else on the planet
Also, at least the Italian government is still dancing the tip tap regarding a position on America, not taking any definitive stance or doing anything significantly different than before, which is a big rift wrt what people want. Only exception for defense expenses
What does "brown people" mean? It seems like such a superficially racist characterization.
Interesting. Thanks, I didn’t know that the Chinese used the phrase “brown people” to refer to Indians. Or that Mexicans (part of North America) use “brown people” to mean South Americans.
It seems such a weird phrase to use. Is it white people who use the phrase? Or also brown people themselves? What about sub-Saharan Africa? Do they have a group they label “brown people”?
Thanks for educating me.
In case my understatement made things unclear, it's not the sort of thing I worry about at all.
and hence "brown"? What does that terminology even mean?
You're missing the point.
What about this is an essential concern for you? Like, what are the potential harms?
> What about this is an essential concern for you? Like, what are the potential harms?
European countries take great care in maintaining and strengthening their traditions and cultural heritage. That would be at risk. Now, whether or not that actually matters or not is debatable, but Europeans DO seem to care to keep their cultures and traditions alive.
I really like this metaphor:
A politician, a voter, and an immigrant are at a BBQ. There's 100 sausages on the grill. The politician goes up, takes 99 sausages, turns to the voter and says "quick, that immigrant is gonna steal your sausage".
It's truly frustrating how effective it is to distract the general population by just inciting fear like that.
I lived all over the place after growing up in the Catholic German country side. I think the places most afraid from cultural dilution are the ones that needed it the most.
It's also so funny how folks in the US keep forgetting that they literally used to be immigrants of all sorts of origins and what made them so successful is leveraging the diverse perspectives. Most of this whole AI boom is based on work from people that came to the US from less privileged places all working together for something greater than them.
What do you think about all the money and energy that European countries spend on propping up their traditions and cultural heritage VS just letting it evolve "naturally" as demographics shift?
its really funny. some people are fighting a fictional war that the 'other side' isn't really engaged in, and they're losing.
the other funny thing is that if you asked someone what the largest threat to their cultural identity is, a lot of them wouldn't answer immigrants - they would be more concerned about the cancerous US style anodyne consumer culture and media as being the most corrosive
Considering our current "leadership" here in the USA, probably any minority with any shade of "brown" to their skin-tone?
Are you sure they are not more concerned about 'Will my kids be able to get a good job, own a house and generally be at least as prosperous as me, if not more?'
Treat the ethnic minorities well today.
Lay the foundation for an inclusive, multicultural society now, rather than falling for the same old bullshit about immigrants stealing yer jerbs and using that as an excuse for rampant racism that will reverberate down the line.
It occurs to me that an effective solution to that problem might be to… Treat minorities well? You know, like people equal to you? Societies are made of the people in them; if minorities are treated positively, then you don’t have to fear being in one. Teach your kids to be nice.
If you are not a moronic racist, #1 is a non-issue.
As for #2, Volkswagen is far from going out of business. In any case, trade with China can be adjusted with adequate policy, EU as a trade block can handle it just fine.
As an European, I see the US as an actual existential threat to Europe. China is just a trade partner with some clashing trade interests.
I didn’t expect having to read great replacement bullshit on Hacker News. JFC do some napkin math, it’s utter nonsense.
It's also worth noting that those white people concerned about becoming ethnic minorities are themselves immigrants. British and French colonists; German, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Irish; Hutterite and Mennonite - all immigrants, many within just the last few generations. For as long as Canada has been a country, it has been made up of many groups of different ethnicities, all immigrants. "White" isn't an ethnicity.
Too bad the people that should get the message are barely literate.
If you are in tech or government or banking or any large corp you are a minority.
Things have changed.
Those damn whites did their Great Replacement a long time ago. Foreign invaders displacing the native culture.
What threatens me is imbeciles that believe in great replacement and 14 words about future for white children. Keep your racism across the pond and try not to breed with siblings.
Issues of migration and fertility rate are related to structural incentives and constraints, level of urbanization, economic development, etc.
I want my country to prosper. It won't prosper by closing itself off to migration. I hope it attracts more researches and highly educated people from around the world, especially now that the US is shunning them.
You are bundling a lot of ethnicities, many of those who historically had major grievances amongst themselves, in race bullshit very specific to the US.
A "white" label is very meaningless this side of the pond. I have little patience for this shit, the US truly is a sick place if your rhetoric is what it produces.
In the end what you don't value will disappear including your nation.
Arbitrary bigotry always finds a way to claim that it represents a truth.
This is such a silly way to out yourself as absolutely clueless.
I would invite you to go to Croatia and explain to them how they're the same ethnicity as Serbians and they even speak the same goddamn language.
Please stop making grand proclamations about how our continent should act when it's obvious you don't understand even the most basic conditions.
I think they would consider themselves white from a different nations. Many north american natives come from different tribes but they are still Indian. Same thing.
Please refrain from spreading nonsense you clearly know nothing about.
Telling anyone in the balkans they are the same as their neighbors because they are white will always be a fun exercise.
Except Greeks of course, who are widely recognized to be north African.
Why should white majority countries loses their white majority and power while other countries keep their nation states?
White majority countries will become another majority race because people like yourself don't see any value in people with white skin. Other races do and they will represent the future. China is still going to be Chinese so is Japan going to remain Japanese, so is India going to remain Indian. They see their value. White majority countries have been told they have no value and they will disappear.
Why would the US ally with Russia, who is a Chinese and Iranian ally?
That's just uncritical thinking.
The United States is the single largest bilateral provider of direct military equipment, intelligence, and defense funding to Ukraine (a European country) against Russia.
I don’t think the comment above you is suggesting that is a possibility, but rather saying “things are so bad that the only imaginable way to get worse would be <outlandish unimaginable scenario>”. In other words, it seems to be hyperbole.
By absolute dollars, single country: US > EU institutions > Germany > UK
By absolute dollars, bloc vs. bloc: EU/Europe combined (~$237bn+) now exceeds the US (~$130bn), especially after 2025
By per-capita/GDP burden: tiny front-line states (Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway) far outstrip both the US and the larger Western European economies — the US actually ranks closer to the bottom of the pack on a relative-effort basis, behind Germany, the UK, and virtually all Nordic/Baltic states
Between February 2022 and January 2025, average expenditure per European resident stood at $394; by April 2026 that figure had risen to $618, driven by the total spending by European NATO countries on Ukraine exceeding $237 billion, including $96 billion contributed just since January 2025.
Average European (across NATO's European members) $618 per person (2022-2026)
United States (my estimate: ~$130bn total ÷ ~340m population)≈ $384 per person
It's tough being here and feeling powerless to stop it. Beyond voting, campaign donations, judicious choice of employment, etc.
Anyhow, you're welcome back should you change your mind. In my book, anyway.
You guys are the meekest sheep to ever been led astray by a howling, undisguised wolf.
What more does this regime have to do to warrant massive, historic, disruptive, non-peaceful protests in the USA?
Have you seen protests in France? Bringing the country to a halt is the least you have to do in order for us to ever have faith in the USA again.
Until then, nothing any US citizen can say online will do anything to restore trust. If you're not rioting, you're complicit. It's as simple as that.
It's not about being too meek to fix things. It's about half the country wanting what's happening.
The excess deaths and human misery (both that which is increasingly clearly ongoing, and we have to look forward to) are going to be tragic.
That’s overstating it. A couple clarifications.
It banned foreign (edit) made equipment because it’s known for cybersecurity issues. It was the FCC that restricted new foreign-made connected inverters over grid cybersecurity concerns. [1]
1. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adds-foreign-produced-power...
> This week, the US government paid a wind farm company $1.2 billion to stop building wind farms.
The $1.2B is real, but it wasn’t payment to stop construction. RWE agreed to surrender three offshore wind leases and settle related claims. Anyways, RWE’s three leases were in very early development and weren’t expected online until the 2030s. [2]
You can still think both policies are bad. But those are different claims.
2. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/rwe-says-reached-12...
1. https://www.energy.gov/cmei/systems/solar-photovoltaics-supp...
If one is trying to attack the threat you claim, one might ban all internet capable inverters.
To ban all, even fully offline ones, means the threat you describe is an excuse.
The ban covers any inverter with any wireless communication whatsoever. Bluetooth is specifically called out, despite necessarily being local-only and not enabling an internet connection.
I suppose you could make the argument that with Bluetooth, the app that communicates with it has internet access and thus it's the same thing. However:
The ban does not cover a power inverter with no integrated comms, but has a serial port into which is plugged a "sold separately" wifi dongle. Neither does the ban cover an inverter with an ethernet port. It covers solely wireless communication.
I think home devices that phone somebody-elses-home are a cancer anyway.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-423682A1.pdf
They’re network-connected and remotely controllable. The concern is compromise of the vendor/cloud infrastructure allowing large numbers of inverters to be manipulated simultaneously.
Or even Trojan horse style malware is a possibility I suppose (Stuxnet).
That’s basically the threat model that they are using. If people want to argue with that, then that’s something to poke at
The beef from a single hamburger uses far more water than a year of ChatGPT usage. Few try to reduce consumption in favor of more efficient foods by comparison. It’s about perception.
It's a complete failure of the state in having any kind of foresight.
China, in comparison, has around 2X excess electric production capacity in their grid. That's what made mining Bitcoin, and now ultra-cheap LLM inference, economically viable.
Nice opportunity for the rest of the world, though.
Probably one of the biggest flaws of a Democratic system is that a voting majority can mandate a situation that harms literally everyone against the will of everyone else even when those harms are well documented and absolutely provable.
"The majority voted for it" isn't a great answer for the question "Why exactly are we letting the bus driver drive us all over this cliff edge to our fiery deaths?"
"Stop the bus! I want off!"
"Nope. The vote's done. You're stuck with the result."
"Well, what if I voted against driving over the cliff edge?"
"Nope. Majority rules. We all die now."
Not all democracies are equal and the US system is barely "democratic" - it's spiralled in a two party not broadly representative Hotelling's Law swampland.
I don't understand what "despite this" is doing here. People have thoughts about what good/bad policy should be, independent of what good/bad policy should do all the time.
This is not an argument for or against data centers, but rather against populism. People have too many feeling about too many things, that should simply should not be decided by feel (and, sometimes, not enough about things that should).
It really wouldn’t hurt if the developers involved tried even a little bit to be good neighbors and to select sites where they’re not going to be a nuisance and net negative to adjacent communities at minimum.
The blatantly extractive, externalizing mindset of this all reminds me of the attitude that mining companies have taken towards Appalachian states for over a century at this point.
But hey, line go up!
If you dig into the sources you will find
Economic predictions:
The most serious mainstream institutions[1] will dress it up us an imminent catastrophe as if humanity itself will collapse if we don't do anything. But once you read the real predictions, you will realise that that it they just say things would be better if you had reduced emissions compared to if we did not, but not compared to today (crucially)
Tail risks and irreversible damage:
I have read on tail risks, ecological collapse, species death and all of these models are strange and not supported by the mainstream generally. For example [2] article says that 5% of our species will go extinct by 2100 or so. That means more than 200k species! And in the last 50 years fewer than 1500 or so went extinct and it is not some abnormal number.
I would encourage you to actually read the studies and see what people believe and the models used.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/investing-in-climate-fo...
[2] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461
Edit, can't reply:
> Your argument is just linking to credible sources that make the opposite argument as you, and then stating "I disagree" afterwards?
Dude, read the first document and then tell me whether they say things will get worse than now or not. They explicitly compare the counterfactual against with or without emissions not against today. This is my issue with this kind of misinformation.
It’s bad to pump non-renewable fossil aquifer water in Arizona for evaporative cooling, but using cooling towers in an area that gets 30” or more of precipitation per year is probably not going to hurt anything.
The issue isn't comparative usage to existing hookups, it's new cost burden on the local community where a data center is built. Which is why DC propogandists switched to the golf course measurement, it confuses the original concern, the cost to the community of new DC hookups to municipal water or the very limited amount (of expensive to the community) available hookups that were intended/funded by the community for other purposes.
Can you tell me how much water a data center uses? If you have strong opinion on the construction of data centers I hope you can answer this basic question about data centers. (Many opposed to them cannot)
A lot, but not all, of these datacenters are using evaporative cooling, which is what kicks their water usage so high.
So a 40MW datacenter will consume around 4 million liters of water per day if it is evaporatively cooled.
[1] https://www.fwpcoa.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=859275...
There’s around a million acres of alfalfa grown in California for a total water usage of 1,625,000*1,000,000=1.625×10¹² gallons (or 5 million acre-feet) per year.
365 million gallons of water per year for one data center is 1000 acre feet of water. California’s alfalfa crop uses as much water as 5,000 of these data centers.
1000 acre feet is approximately 40 hectare meters. Or, you know, about 1.2 billion liters.
Over on this side of the ocean, we’ve got freshwater lakes larger than entire European countries. There’s a lake over here, it has an island on it. That island has a lake, which has an island in it. And there’s a lake on that island.
We need units of measurement that represent large things. If you don’t, that’s ok.
Works well in places that need to represent things large and small. Europe, Canada, Australia, and pretty much everywhere else.
But enjoy your cubic furlongs and tablespoons.
Because DCs are, and that is the concern local communities have. Not random comparative statistics whose purpose seems to be to take valid local community concerns and pretend they're just a joke. How much do alfa growers in California add to my water bill? How much will new municipal water hookups by new data centers impact my water bill? One is a valid concern. One is just a BS attempt to discredit the valid concern. Because that is how this shady industry operates. On BS. On manipulation. And they wonder why they are more and more disliked.
The reason these DC use so much water is because it uses less electricity to evaporatively cool than it takes to cool with a heat pump.
You are trading water scarcity for energy scarcity.
In my personal opinion, the right tradeoff is more electricity. Also IMO, these DCs should be required to build out solar + battery + wind offset plants which supply their energy either directly or indirectly by selling to the grid operator at a discounted rate. If you want 40MW of power, you need to deploy 40MW of solar (not peak, but yearly average output) and a 400MWh battery plus all the grid hookups required.
The end result for residence should be lower energy bills, not higher bills.
No, you already know they use flood irrigation.
Why is a municipal water system allowing a data center connection that will strain their distribution network? They’re well within their rights to say no, Mark Zuckerberg isn’t holding a gun to their heads.
Deep pockets have a way of bypassing practical concerns. [1]
Zuckerberg likely isn't holding a gun to their heads, instead it's more likely he's putting wads of cash in their pockets.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2026/03/08/texas-corpus-christi...
- [0] https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/musks-xai-is-being-sued-ov...
Peoplecheered xAI on and admired how quickly they were able to move, without much regard to the methods or legality. IMO competitors had no choice but to respond in kind when they see XAI not just getting away with it, but also getting a pass on legal issues.
Who gives a shit who started it? The ones who continue engaging in it, should clearly be punished as they're working against humanity's best interest of keeping this planet survivable.
If you're one of the largest companies in the world, constantly brag about how environmental friendly you are and how much you care about "sustainability" or what the trendy word is today, and you end up building a data center that sets a record in pollution (either directly or indirectly), you're doing something massively fucked up and are misaligned with the rest of the people on this planet.
> Peoplecheered xAI on and admired how quickly they were able to move, without much regard to the methods or legality. IMO competitors had no choice but to respond in kind when they see XAI not just getting away with it, but also getting a pass on legal issues.
I guess this is what late-stage capitalism gives you ultimately, companies who feel like it's fine doing whatever because competitors are also doing whatever. No one I know have been cheering for anything like that, I suggest if you have people cheering about stuff like that near you, get far away.
https://www.selc.org/press-release/naacp-asks-court-for-emer... and the previous link I referenced.
One would think if there is even a suspicion (even if it hasn't been ruled in court yet) about large-scale harmful toxic emissions, the police and relevant authorities would at least quickly do some samples or what not, to figure out if they need to put an immediate stop to it until the courts ruled either way.
But seemingly it's still ongoing and no harm no foul?
This is the case for lots of things. Negligence can turn into "reckless disregard for human life", breach of contract could amount to fraud, and many other cases.
An all-out global nuclear war (all nuclear nations landing 10% of their warheads in populated areas) would be a disruption comparable to COVID at best.
Wouldn’t we expect tens of millions of casualties, nuclear fallout rendering large swathes of countries uninhabitable, and ensuing total societal collapse once the globalized western world is separated from their foreign means of production?
https://www.icanw.org/new_study_on_us_russia_nuclear_war
Fallout would cause significantly more casualties. Then there are the environmental effects. Science on that has evolved over the past few decades, so wikipedia is a good starting point for an overview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Since none of this is certain and we're talking about risks, considering the worst cases seems appropriate, and those involve agricultural collapse, several billion dead, mass extinction, and an ozone hole covering most of the planet. It might not kill off the human species, but modern civilization would struggle to recover.
It should absolutely be focused on anyway. I don’t know how you got the other impression. The US gov paying to stop windmills and solar is insane.
So the most interesting thing to take away from this: There is a lot of demand for more power and in this instance it's satisfied by gas. Which is still much better than coal. Which is still much worse than renewables.
It's a catch22 problem because nuclear is much slower to build than a data center so there is no demand from the data centers. And the nuclear plant doesn't know the demand will be there in 5 years once with gas soaking up demand. So the build it and they will come strategy is risky. Building infrastructure is like a muscle that gets stronger with repetitions. The cost will only come down once some are built but nobody wants to build at the current high prices. Govt help is needed to kick start it.
https://nric.inl.gov/news/
This race to the bottom will have plenty more to give us in the coming years.
It's very trendy right now to get mad at datacenters, but I'd much rather energy come from natural gas than from an existing coal power plant. (Obviously, renewables would be better than either.)
In other words, they are using gas turbines because the politicians are stupid.
So yes, wind and solar are cheap. Depending on where in Texas you are, gas is cheaper.
How do you reconcile that with your theory?
Texas accounts for 40% of new solar capacity installed per year at this point.
It does lag behind an inefficient and expensive rooftop solar, and has no State mandate for homeowners to build it.
That said, I think this is enough to show that Texas doesn't hate solar, so there's probably a different reason for selecting gas to support the data center. If I were to Hazard I guess, it would be stability and demand curve
Texas is not at all against renewables. Maybe, just maybe, whatever axes the people building data centers are optimizing on rule out solar/wind over factors other than "renewables are for leftists, so fuck that we're gonna burn gas even if it's more expensive."
No need—the current ones are uploaded directly into my mailbox regularly by Randy Weber, my district rep.
> 11.40% of TX electricity is from solar
This is... Not a huge statement to me. My home state is at 16% solar, and we're calling it inadequate. [0] Its not a 1-to-1, as we have probably 10% of the people, and 1/3 of the landmass. More spread out, different demand, so a completely different landscape.
But 11% is not some victory dance.
[0] https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/about-energy/news/news-stories...
I can certainly believe that oil and gas pay better bribes, and that this incentivises a certain kind of politician who seem to be over-represented among conservatives in the US. But that doesn't explain the widespread dislike among the conservative end of the general population. Is it just groupthink or Overton Window -nudging using social media? Or is there something more psychological going on? Some kind of disgust reaction?
Going back to the original rule the point is to not have endless meta discussions. I am skirting it imo but I included rationale for my argument.
But instead of continuing a meta discussion the better option for someone like you would be to downvote it.
You’re also mixing up Texas energy policy with the engineering requirements of an AI data center. Those are different discussions.
The claim that Texas wind generation is “back to 2017 levels” isn’t supported by the data. Texas continues to add large amounts of wind and especially solar. Solar has been dominating though as a percentage of generation and wind has fallen behind. Wind input costs are up quite a bit since 2017-2021 era. I am sure some of this might have political motivations but if the economics are in solar companies are going to build solar farms.
The original point still stands: if you need guaranteed 24/7 on site power for a massive data center, gas turbines are a much more practical solution than trying to achieve the same reliability with wind, solar, and batteries. Your post is just a political derailment that does not hit why Amazon did what they did.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49208314
Eg https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/pollution-musks-unper...
The flip side of course is that gas turbines are in short supply and manufacturers are in no hurry to build out production capacity for what is effectively obsolete technology with a very uncertain future. A lot of the projects being announced may never get delivered for the simple reason that there are long waiting lists for these things.
And there is the notion that related investments might end up under water when the few plants that do get built start struggling economically in ten years or so. These are not very attractive long term investments. The short term interest in securing any capacity at all is overriding this. Of the well over a hundred GW of data centers planned until 2035, probably only less than a 30-40% will actually get built; if not less. Michael Liebreich is predicting only about 35GW will be realized. His estimate is that there simply is no more production capacity that can be committed than that.
It will be interesting to see if this Amazon plant actually gets built. For now Amazon can afford to gamble on this and just write it off if it doesn't work out.
If policy changes in a few years, I expect a lot of these projects to get unceremoniously cancelled when it turns out that they are a combination of under water financially and behind on schedule because of component shortages anyway. Also, it only takes a few failed projects for everyone to get cold feet. Premature closures of new gas plants could happen if renewables get cheap enough. Those are already happening in some places.
More people will be using AI during the (work)day, than at midnight. Then they could do half solar, half gas.
Also "more expensive" when it comes to solar isn't meaningful until you also consider timeframe. Solar panels pay themselves off in a few years, and after that they basically generate "free" electricity. Gas never becomes cheaper or free, every year it will cost money.
First: global usage.
Next: I even wonder why frontiers labs don't sell batch processing and spot prices to keep 100% utilisation. If they do that and I suspect they will it will be 24/7 maxxed.
Imagine this: Fable at 98% discount because but you need to wait. Then imagine: bots that scan your tickets for easy low priority tasks to do when those cheap tokens come.
Let alone research batch compute needs. Training and so on.
One concept will drive this shift: GAAP profitability.
Timeframe is accounted for if you look at levelized cost per kWh. The levelized cost of natural gas is 5 to 11 cents/kWh. In the sunniest spots, the levelized cost of solar with enough battery storage to provide 24/7 power is about the same, if you want >90% reliability. The usual four hours of storage is only enough to account for the "duck curve" during the day.
https://www.pv-tech.org/solar-pv-and-storage-cost-declines-d...
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e...
Solar and batteries keep getting cheaper so hopefully they will be clear winners soon, at least in sunny areas.
Texas has very cheap gas; it’s also good for solar. They are very competitive price wise, so it’s kinda depressing they are using gas. But it’s probably a slight price edge plus better reliability.
> I frequently hear that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity
presumably they put zero value on stable production or count subsidies as income
The Gargantuan Lie That is Collapsing The World’s Climate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49208686
1786121329 | Scoop: Amazon Is Behind One of the Largest Planned Gas Power Plants in the US | https://www.distilled.earth/p/scoop-amazon-is-behind-one-of-...
1786014051 | AWS eyes potential data center development at 4.5GW natural gas plant in Pennsylvania | https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/aws-eyes-potentia...
1786181141 | 'Better ways to use gas': Amazon finances massive US plant for data centres | https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article...
1786202472 | Amazon plans massive Texas AI campus and an enormous gas power plant | https://www.chron.com/news/article/amazon-texas-data-center-...
1784098800 | Amazon to install hundreds of gas-fired generators at Bucks County data center site | https://whyy.org/articles/amazon-data-center-bucks-county-pa...
1786140583 | Amazon Is Building America's Biggest Fossil Fuel Plant to Power AI | https://heatmap.news/energy/amazon-gw-ranch
1786173935 | Amazon Backs 7.65-GW Gas Plant in Texas to Power New AI Data Center Campus | https://constructionreviewonline.com/amazon-backs-7-65-gw-ga...
1786131006 | Amazon Is Creating the Biggest Pollution Source in the Entire Country | https://newrepublic.com/post/214111/amazon-data-center-bigge...
1784358000 | Pennsylvania set to approve 283 new generators at Amazon data center despite objections | https://www.thecooldown.com/green-tech/amazon-data-center-bu...
1780556400 | What the rise of natural gas-powered data centers means for emission-reduction pledges | https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2026/06/04/data-centers-a...
Meta, for instance, plans a $13B data centre in Sturgeon County.
https://www.vozpopuli.com/indux/en/alberta-approved-a-932-me...
They all plan on powering them by building massive natural gas generating stations with each. In a free for all race to destroy the environment and doom humanity (aside from your plutocrats who'll live in their bunkers). Until a week or so ago Meta still had a clean energy pledge, but finally they just abandoned that silly greenwashing lie: https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/meta-quits-clean-e...
We are basically in the end game now, and despite that weird guy running through these comments telling everyone how great everything is going to be in a hundred years, things are looking utterly grim.
The dominant political party frames natural gas as "clean", because it isn't a dirty as coal; and Alberta natural gas in particular as "ethical", because not Russia or Saudi.
Capitalism is a death cult, AI capitalism doubly so.
Please share your sources saying it's not getting worse.
Do you really believe, that the way humans are using resources and polluting everything, doesn't have any negative impact?
And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?
And your OECD study: doesn't it specifically talk about economic impact if climate change measures ARE being implemented (especially emission reductions)? This of course makes sense, as this would imply massive investments in technologies and sectors. This source specifically does not make a case for climate change being not as bad as predicted or that it doesn't take place.
Looking at the current state of the world (especially ecosystems, which are extremely important for us), I really wonder how someone can make an argument, that it isn't as bad as it is made out to be. It is often way worse, as many things aren't really talked about in the open.
That's anthropomorphizing. The ecosystem cannot be stressed because it has no natural/good state.
> And why the hell would the GDP be ANY good measurement, since it does not include any environmental costs (if I don't need to correctly dispose of my trash and can burn it cheaper, I have an economic advantage in the way of less costs)?
Because people predict life will eventually get worse. Your scenario is why people are making bad long term decisions (according to you) but the reason it's a bad long term choice is because it's supposed to lead to bad outcomes for humanity. GDP is a pretty decent measure of quality of life.
If the climate gets worse but quality of life gets better, it's not quite the catastrophe that's often claimed.
Not OP but that's the point being made.
Essentially you're both talking about different things. you're saying the environment will be worse and OP is saying we'll be better off.
You're also saying a worse environment will make us worse of but not backing that up with data. OP is. That data might be bad but I haven't seen you say anything that would make me doubt it but the OECD has overseen a period of immense improvement of all the measures OP is talking about.
OPs argument is that climate change might kill a billion people but the energy used that creates that climate change created two billion people with better lives.
A simple Google search brings up: https://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/
A couple of excerpts from the front page, without even registering to access the full report:
1.1.5 Heat-related mortality
Failure to curb the warming effects of climate change has seen the rate of heat-related deaths surge 23% since the 1990s, to 546,000 a year.
1.2.1 Wildfires
The risk of wildfires is growing: 2024 saw a record-high 154,000 estimated deaths from wildfire smoke-derived small particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5)
The oceans are boiling [0], marine life is dying [1]. Land close to the water will be land under water soon [2]. The ice caps are melting and setting free all sorts of diseases. [3]
Large parts of our planet on fire all the time now, here's one from Australia from this year [4], but I'm sure you've read about wildfires in Spain and France this year, Australia last year, California every year, Greece last year etc etc.
Rivers in Europe are at an all-time low [5], nuclear power plants need to shut down because they can't be cooled anymore. [6]
It takes deep ideological commitment to close ones eyes to the obvious.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/09/profound...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/09/profound...
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w
[3] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/could-microbes-l...
[4] https://phys.org/news/2026-01-australia-declares-state-disas...
[5] https://eu-space.europa.eu/components/earth-observation-cope...
[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0nqv05g0do
You think life expectancy will stay the same when forests burn down, we run out of water and crops, conflicts start everywhere, cities start flooding, we get more and more storms, energy crises because we have to shut down power plants etc etc?
You're basing your read on wayyyy too simplistic a metric that compresses true life expectancy into something not accounting for most meaningful dimensions.
It will go up. The rest of the third world is at very low life expectancy and the next 100 years will involve a lot of progress for them. You have not shown me any evidence that it will go down.
None of this is preordained. We, the phyical persons, can choose how we want to live, and what constraints the corporate persons must accept.