Some parts of the anti-AI movement are becoming so unhinged that now any use of compute is considered an environmental threat. This degrowth mentality needs to die.

▲

wartywhoa23 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Should I reminder you what unlimited growth means and how it ends up in biology? Society/technology is no exception.

▲

pu_pe 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No need for unlimited growth, just normal sustainable progress like the one that allows you and me to communicate here after centuries of technological progress.

▲

PatronBernard 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ah yes, sustainable progress, like we're doing now?

▲

vrganj 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The "normal sustainable progress" has already pushed us to the brink of extinction. AI is rapidly accelerating our resource use, with nothing good to show for it.

	▲	lxgr 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How exactly are we "on the brink of extinction"? ("We" as in humans; many other species are obviously not as lucky.) We are probably on the brink of very bad consequences for a signification fraction of all humans (up to and including all of them, to some extent), which is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. But what do you gain by incorrectly labeling that as "extinction"? Because you do definitely lose credibility for it, similarly to everybody using hyperbolic language such as "boiling the oceans" etc.

▲

farfatched 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If it's emissions they worry about, then it's anything emitting.

Are they against washing machines too? Or are they just grandfathered in?

▲

pjc50 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is literally why the EU mandates appliance energy efficiency.

It's never a binary thing. "Is using energy good or bad?" is a stupid question which can only provide stupid answers. It has to be placed in the context of whether it's proportionate to benefit.

Things which burn a lot of energy for little benefit - and in the case of AI, often negative benefit - end up more towards the "bad".

▲

zekrioca 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't be disingenuous. Not all energy is created equally.

▲

newtonsmethod 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Are we back to magic water and magic soil? Does the energy have some morality attached to it?

The emissions per kWh of energy used in providing internet downloads probably is similar to that per kWh of energy used for washing clothes.

▲

Aachen an hour ago | parent [-]

You're not seriously trying to explain that a kWh is equal to a kWh. Why not cut the crap? Are you trying to say washing clothes is of equal importance to convenience features in a browser, given that we can use each clean kWh only once? I can't tell what you truly mean like this

	▲	frozenseven 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>a kWh is equal to a kWh Yes, and it's none of your business how other people spend their electricity.

▲

vrganj 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Our planet is literally dying.

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 Australia last year, California every year, Greece last year etc etc.

What you're proposing is nothing short of a death cult. It's either degrowth or we all die, sacrificed at the altar of capitalism.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/09/profound...

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03013-5

[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...?

▲

jve 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Have you ever made a decision to NOT download something, turn on your computer, experiment, etc based on your perceived impact on the planet?

I mean this should (and is) be tackled at the source: 0/low emission energy generation and not consumer having to think about these decisions. Sustainable data centers using renewables etc. But not that the companies should associate/evaluate/consider bytes downloaded with environmental impact.

	▲	Aachen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> this should (and is) be tackled at the source: 0/low emission energy generation and not consumer having to think about these decisions. Until we're at that point though, the 'winners' in this market society (that wield unimaginable amounts of money = resources) such as Google could certainly think about consequences of their choices. And they usually do to some extent, I'm not saying they don't, just that electric supply and demand has two sides to it

▲

pu_pe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why do you attribute to capitalism an issue that is much more fundamental than it? People want more stuff and better lives, it's as simple as that. Even hunger/gatherer societies brought themselves to extinction multiple times in the past, and I doubt the USSR would have fared better against climate change.

Technological progress is also societal progress. If we embraced degrowth in the 1800's (there was a ton of pollution back then, and a Malthusian belief in disaster!) we might not see slavery being abolished or women being able to vote.

	▲	Aachen an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> People want more stuff and better lives, it's as simple as that. Not everyone wants this at the cost of others. It's not as simple as that / not a necessary consequence of our desire to find clever solutions to solve everyday inconveniences
	▲	vrganj 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because capitalism ties together better lives an ideological belief in unbounded growth. Will people's lives really be better once they're drowning or choking on wildfire smoke? But hey, at least they had cheap junk! It's possible to have better lives as well as societal progress without endless growth. Technological progress, too, doesn't have to mean burning our oceans. We just gotta actually think about the costs and consequences of our actions. Not every technological development is inherently good. Sometimes the cost is not worth the result. I posit the cost of AI so far has been astronomical, higher than anything else in living memory. The results on the other hand have been rather middling. This is my issue. A cost/benefit analysis, not a strict no to progress.