Hate to confront you with reality, but if you're in the US, 95% of the infrastructure around you was built in a world prior to the sham obstructionist cudgel of "environmental impact studies" even existed.

So the answer is no, you would not have voted to build everything around you that currently exists.

Btw, have you ever looked into how your municipality funds its services and where that tax money comes from? I have some bad news for you.

▲

BigTTYGothGF 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> 95% of the infrastructure around you was built in a world prior to the sham obstructionist cudgel of "environmental impact studies" even existed.

Yeah and that's how we got a messed up environment.

▲

text0404 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks for telling me how I think. If we're doing that, let me tell you how you think: you don't care about people and want to pursue profit over human life, and will go to any length to defend a private corporation over the people who have to live with the negative impacts of its poor decisions.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but a large portion of the infrastructure that was built before environmental impact studies existed caused severe health issues for the surrounding communities, including cancer and death. That's why we have environmental impact studies now.

▲

pembrook 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yes, and as with everything humans do as a mob, the pendulum tends to swing way too far in whatever direction the memes are trending.

We saw Erin Brokovich and then proceeded to block the building of literally everything. But it turns out there's a middle ground between "Mass cancer and death" and "total ban on new things."

If I'm incorrect that you don't just have a gut reaction to anything new being built, can you articulate exactly what about Datacenters is uniquely bad in comparison to anything else humans build (factories, houses, warehouses, malls, golf courses, pools, etc) that you believe needs to be stopped?

Would you be happier if we de-centralized data-centers as hardware in everyones homes and re-classified their resource usage as residential (basically where things are headed if we keep down this path)?

Or do you not like the idea of resource usage at all, even if residential and renewable? Are we afraid of wasting the sun's precious energy? Are we afraid water used in a data center is somehow destroyed and can no longer enter the water cycle?

I'm struggling to understand here.

	▲	text0404 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> We saw Erin Brokovich and then proceeded to block the building of literally everything These kinds of generalizations are so ridiculous as to be completely useless. You keep saying that we're blocking "everything"... what? Nobody is claiming that we need to stop building (in your words) "literally everything". This is called a "straw man". > But it turns out there's a middle ground between "Mass cancer and death" and "total ban on new things." Yes, and environmental impact studies move us away from the "mass cancer and death" while still allowing "things" to be built. > what about Datacenters is uniquely bad - Excessive water consumption which is especially bad in areas that experience droughts - Excessive electricity consumption which strains power grids which have not had time to adapt (also causing wildly increased bills for local residents) - Continuous operation which exacerbates the above issues (compared to "factories, malls, golf courses, pools, etc" which largely operate for only a portion of the day) - More land use, making the nearby land uninhabitable due to noise as well as other environmental impacts for local wildlife > Or do you not like the idea of resource usage at all, even if residential and renewable? Are we afraid of wasting the sun's precious energy? I'm struggling to understand. I'm struggling to understand where on earth you got this? It seems like you're just inventing arguments to debate against. I never said anything like this.