• BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I swear the concept of doing two things at once is lost on nearly everyone on the internet who clutch their pearls.

    The doomscrolling rot has infected their minds lol. They overemphasize the effects of climate change while ignoring everything good and green people are doing which is literally countering said climate change through mitigation and adaptation.

    Yet… somehow they want to freeze the entirety of the world, magically build enough wind, solar, and hydro to power everything, then just… turn it back on again.

    Yeah, literally everyone would do that if they could. It’s not how reality works lol. Prepare for greenwashing comments for quoting studies that aren’t from the 1970s!

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03012021/five-aspects-climate-change-2020/

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/can-we-slow-or-even-reverse-global-warming

    https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/adaptation-mitigation/resources/

    https://toolkit.climate.gov/

    https://www.un.org/en/un75/climate-crisis-race-we-can-win

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/there-is-still-plenty-we-can-do-to-slow-climate-change/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yet… somehow they want to freeze the entirety of the world, magically build enough wind, solar, and hydro to power everything, then just… turn it back on again.

      No, we want billionaires to stop using so much fucking energy and making things disproportionately worse for everyone

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Sorry, didn’t realize we were doing the theatrical pedantry thing, let me clarify: we want the companies that the billionaires own and control to stop using so much fucking energy and making things disproportionately worse for everyone.

          Better?

          • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, because it’s not billionaires or these companies supplying resources to nobody lol.

            Lemmy, Reddit, and whatever social media might all believe they aren’t utilizing these things, but they are. People aren’t dropping literal trillions into tech, infrastructure, design, and pushing stuff to live just because they want to.

            End users are utilizing it. And data centers are one of the few things we need more of, not less. Let alone how bullshit the energy and water use statistics are for these places lol. Oh no it used up 6% of the city’s water!.. ignore the manufacturing, bottle water places, agriculture, etc. AI BAD SCARY!

            1 AI search = 10 google searches. https://www.snexplores.org/article/green-artificial-intelligence-less-energy-ai-climate

            How about watching TikTok? 30 minutes of video daily = 28kg of carbon a year. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/social-media-emissions-carbon-footprint/ or https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/energy/features/social-carbon-footprint-calculator/ or https://yoast.com/carbon-footprint-of-website/

            • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              No shit people are utilizing things. That’s not the point. The point is that on the way to providing these services, they harm the environment disproportionately more than you or I. As your first article points out:

              "AI doesn’t have to be super, super data-hungry or super, super compute-hungry,” says Donti. Instead, we can “imagine AI differently.”

              That’s the point. The billionaires and their megacorps could do it better. Your article points out a bunch of ways for LLMs to use less energy, and the amount of energy doing that would save would be orders of magnitude more than if people cut back or stopped their use, or whatever it is you’re suggesting.

              • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Man if that was practical at this stage they would already be doing it. These people spend tones of money on data center hardware and the energy to run them, and it costs them reputation. If they didn’t have to do all that it would increase their profit margin significantly.

                • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Fuck their profit margins, and fuck the shitty double standard billionaires and their holdings are held to. If I’m expected to be energy conscious as an individual, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for these rich fucks to make their companies energy conscious as well.

                  • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Don’t get me wrong I am not saying I like billionaires or anything like that. I am saying it’s in the companies best interest to save energy when developing AI. The fact they don’t tells you it isn’t practical. These AI systems aren’t exactly just used by billionaires. All kind of people use these systems and many are actually free to use.

    • Optional@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      They overemphasize the effects of climate change while ignoring everything good and green people are doing which is literally countering said climate change through mitigation and adaptation.

      Overemphasizing the death of all life on the planet? Really? Wow that seems hard to do. Thank goodness the ‘good and green’ people are literally countering said destruction, so that everything’s good and nice again.

      Although mitigation isn’t recovery it’s just making it less bad. And adaptation might be good but it’s also inevitable given the dying environment so I’m not sure we should credit that as a win.

      I guess burning tons of fuel to crank out some bitcoins for Elmo is okley-fuckin-dokely! I was a grade A moron to doubt it!

      • Apollo42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Overemphasizing the death of all life on the planet?

        Don’t worry mate, life is resilient and will endure.

        Humanity, not so much.

        • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You’re wrong about which part survives. If anything does, it’s literally not even metaphorically humans and anything we deem important to us. Everything else is what gets the axe lol.

          • Apollo42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            How can I be wrong about which part survives?

            Life will go on, maybe not humanity but life will endure. If I was wrong and humanity survives, surely life would also have survived?

            • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Then you’ve missed the entire point of the original saying. It insinuates humanity will be extinct but some little rodent will survive. Or a lizard, or insects, etc.

              Humanity is too good for anything the earth will ever throw at it short of a supervolcano. Extrasolar threats are about the closest thing that could take us out and we are A-OK as far as radiation bursts from nearby exploding stars go. That just leaves asteroids large enough to turn the entire crust into molten rock. In which case all life except potentially the tiniest deep in the crust or reintroduced through contaminated space materials will survive.

              Humanity will survive the rest. Us poors might not, but humanity will lol.

        • Noxy@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sure, except for all the species for which we’ve caused extinction.

    • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I went through 3 of your sources and they claim that we can, in fact, turn to renewable energies. And that we should! None said anything about it being impossible. I guess maybe one of the others will say something like that, but honestly I’m not working to make your point for you.

      Everybody except your strawmen agree there’s a transition period. The problem is that due to many interests, the powers that be are dragging their feet.

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you agree with what I’ve said, you need to work your communication skills. Me and everybody who downvoted understood the opposite, and that’s not a few.

          • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            No, it’s downvoted because it goes against Lemmy doomers which are the vast majority of people here lol. You are welcome to try to post hopeful good and correctly cited recent climate news somewhere if you’d like though lol.

            Being combative at the start doesn’t exactly help but that shit needs to be said in a thread rife with people saying everyone is going to die lol. Who the fuck cares about downvotes if you’re speaking factual well cited truth? All of you shouldn’t.

            Read the information for what it is and have a clue about where it’s being said. That’s all you need.