3 ms·

These technologies are already using green energy. Let me guess, it's not green enough for you? Imagine if climate change advocates understood the fate of the

These technologies are already using green energy. Let me guess, it's not green enough for you? Imagine if climate change advocates understood the fate of the Earth's climate is determined overwhelmingly by poor people in countries that don't care to be lectured by wealthy Western elites because they're poor. This hardware has a real possibility of enabling breakthroughs across all sectors of the world economy, and those poor people benefit the most from those advances. And since the activists refuse to grapple with this problem, I'm starting to be convinced they're just sociopathic maniacs or deeply racist lunatics. The thought of seeing anyone they deem below them rising to their status makes them seethe.

cdata 3y ago
I might think to suggest that unchecked capitalist exploitation of our natural world has an awful lot to do with the inequities you brought into the discussion. And, if you grant me that this is possibly true (even if unconvincing or unprovable), surely you would agree that someone who believes such a thing would be prosocial and certainly not racist to scoff at the notion that somehow ever-more-unchecked-exploitation is the path to absolution.
- brigadier132 3y ago
  > capitalist exploitation Ah ok
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I don’t know how absolution figures into this or how providing an API for simulations of earths weather systems is some escalation of unchecked exploitation. In fact there was a HN headline article recently that extreme weather hurts the poorest nations because they lack the infrastructure to predict the weather well. Wouldn’t having such an API be of assistance? Is it possible that technology that’s three orders of magnitude more efficient (as they claim) be a boon to the poorest countries that are roughly three orders of magnitude less capable of affording advanced infrastructure like this? Or is grinding political ideology axes more important than actually making important things possible for the poorest countries?
  - cdata 3y ago
    I wish I could agree, but the hard truth is that decisions that imply heavy amounts of energy consumption have to be able to sustain active critique. Simply waving the upsides around and shaming anyone who questions the cost is an age-old posture that has helped bring our society to the brink of disaster.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Consuming energy in itself isn’t problematic, what’s problematic is certain types of energy production are destructive. The question isn’t whether the use of energy itself is moral, it’s are they making moral choices with how they source their energy. That’s why clean and renewable energies are so important - there’s no reason to reduce energy consumption, there’s just reason to stop being destructive when producing energy.
      - cdata 3y ago
        I partially agree. It's actually both questions, because... - We don't have a 100% renewable energy regime (and we are very far from it) - Even if we did it would be possible (and likely) for bad actors to arbitrage cheap energy for yet-more-harmful use cases - As we grow the portion of grid demand that is served by green, renewable energy, the price of coal and natural gas is being driven down - Until we have 100% deployment, one company's "green" energy consumption will simply drive the less-well-capitalized to cheaper, not-green energy sources Cheaper, more pervasive energy will be used efficiently in the ways that are enabled by our legal framework. If we aren't critical of those usages, there is nothing to say that abuses won't become exponentially more conspicuous even as we adopt more and more "clean" energy. And in fact, that's what we see happening in the world today. Look no further than: - Bitcoin mines exploiting cheap spot power and demand response policies, and burning natural gas directly from the well because the speculative price of crypto is more appealing than selling the same gas on the market - Generative AI in general, but especially when you see hundreds of thousands of GPUs deployed without so much as a business case (Stability AI, Inflection, probably many others surfacing in the weeks to come)
  - 3y ago
heresWaldo 3y ago
So make a huge mess serving contemporary economics, damn the externalities, risk future of the species to serve some poor people now? Sounds worse than sociopathy. High minded platitudes not physical evidence is the preference? May as well go back to religion.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  Climate change is a Pascal's wager. https://youtu.be/Ox_sWiorAB8 https://youtu.be/Ox_sWiorAB8
  - heresWaldo 3y ago
    Except all the physical evidence for climate change and none for God Will go with my current living experience, steeped in modern physics and math, over a long dead philosopher who had never encountered a light bulb The past was wrong as much as right, and generally less civil than now. I don’t really see the necessity in relying on it.
    - infamouscow 3y ago
      As explained in the video, the problem with climate change is there are multiple existential risks to the globe. Nobody knows whether an astroid, nuclear war, or a super volcano eruption poses as much, if not more of an existential risk than climate change.
tjpnz 3y ago
What technologies? Short of operating your own power grid you don't get a say in where the electrons powering your GPUs come from.
rudifjejjs 3y ago
If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one, then it’s predicated on the idea that if the majority of the world used the same resources as the wealthy then we’re done. It also ignores that the wealthy have the resources to address their living standards being ecologically sound and therefore those improving their lives will have access to clean solutions. Or you can blame liberals blaming the poor.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  > If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one The argument is based on evidence and reason, not emotions. > then it’s predicated on ... This isn't a hypothetical scenario -- these people overwhelmingly use fossil fuels rather than green energy. > It also ignores that the wealthy have the resources ... Nobody knows whether an astroid, nuclear war, or a super volcano eruption poses as much, if not more of an existential risk than climate change. And given multiple existential risks to the Earth with finite resources, we cannot fall to silly appeals to emotion when allocating these resources. If climate change activists were honest, they would be arguing for why climate change is more of an existential risk than the other existential risks to the planet. Instead, they prognosticate the end of the world rely entirely on sophistry to get their message across.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    We have much more control and certainty over the disaster we are in the process of creating than an extremely unlikely asteroid incident, over the same time frame. We can 100% ensure a climate disaster, or nearly 100% mitigate the worst case. The cost benefit analysis is clear. It costs less to mitigate climate change, and there are huge political and economic gains from removing our dependence on oil, rather than suffer unmitigated climate change. The hard part is coordination. We have the resources and economic incentives as a whole to take the best path. But our political and economic systems are not as sophisticated, in terms of translating the benefits of change to individual actors, as the problem requires. Externalized damage is profitable to powerful corporations, and even customers, in the short run. But we need political systems to more reliably set limits, AND provide the incentives, that would result in CFO’s at the most relevant corporations welcoming the change too. To a first approximation, the transition from fossil fuels by fossil fuel companies will be set by those companies’ CFOs. Make it less profitable to stay with fossil fuels, and make it so profitable for energy companies to supply other forms of energy, that those CFO’s get on board and things will change very fast. Share the economic value of a change with the most important players, as apposed to fighting them, and it will happen. Pragmatism wins.

cdata 3y ago

I might think to suggest that unchecked capitalist exploitation of our natural world has an awful lot to do with the inequities you brought into the discussion. And, if you grant me that this is possibly true (even if unconvincing or unprovable), surely you would agree that someone who believes such a thing would be prosocial and certainly not racist to scoff at the notion that somehow ever-more-unchecked-exploitation is the path to absolution.

brigadier132 3y ago
> capitalist exploitation Ah ok
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I don’t know how absolution figures into this or how providing an API for simulations of earths weather systems is some escalation of unchecked exploitation. In fact there was a HN headline article recently that extreme weather hurts the poorest nations because they lack the infrastructure to predict the weather well. Wouldn’t having such an API be of assistance? Is it possible that technology that’s three orders of magnitude more efficient (as they claim) be a boon to the poorest countries that are roughly three orders of magnitude less capable of affording advanced infrastructure like this? Or is grinding political ideology axes more important than actually making important things possible for the poorest countries?
- cdata 3y ago
  I wish I could agree, but the hard truth is that decisions that imply heavy amounts of energy consumption have to be able to sustain active critique. Simply waving the upsides around and shaming anyone who questions the cost is an age-old posture that has helped bring our society to the brink of disaster.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Consuming energy in itself isn’t problematic, what’s problematic is certain types of energy production are destructive. The question isn’t whether the use of energy itself is moral, it’s are they making moral choices with how they source their energy. That’s why clean and renewable energies are so important - there’s no reason to reduce energy consumption, there’s just reason to stop being destructive when producing energy.
    - cdata 3y ago
      I partially agree. It's actually both questions, because... - We don't have a 100% renewable energy regime (and we are very far from it) - Even if we did it would be possible (and likely) for bad actors to arbitrage cheap energy for yet-more-harmful use cases - As we grow the portion of grid demand that is served by green, renewable energy, the price of coal and natural gas is being driven down - Until we have 100% deployment, one company's "green" energy consumption will simply drive the less-well-capitalized to cheaper, not-green energy sources Cheaper, more pervasive energy will be used efficiently in the ways that are enabled by our legal framework. If we aren't critical of those usages, there is nothing to say that abuses won't become exponentially more conspicuous even as we adopt more and more "clean" energy. And in fact, that's what we see happening in the world today. Look no further than: - Bitcoin mines exploiting cheap spot power and demand response policies, and burning natural gas directly from the well because the speculative price of crypto is more appealing than selling the same gas on the market - Generative AI in general, but especially when you see hundreds of thousands of GPUs deployed without so much as a business case (Stability AI, Inflection, probably many others surfacing in the weeks to come)
- 3y ago

heresWaldo 3y ago

So make a huge mess serving contemporary economics, damn the externalities, risk future of the species to serve some poor people now? Sounds worse than sociopathy. High minded platitudes not physical evidence is the preference? May as well go back to religion.

infamouscow 3y ago
Climate change is a Pascal's wager. https://youtu.be/Ox_sWiorAB8 https://youtu.be/Ox_sWiorAB8
- heresWaldo 3y ago
  Except all the physical evidence for climate change and none for God Will go with my current living experience, steeped in modern physics and math, over a long dead philosopher who had never encountered a light bulb The past was wrong as much as right, and generally less civil than now. I don’t really see the necessity in relying on it.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    As explained in the video, the problem with climate change is there are multiple existential risks to the globe. Nobody knows whether an astroid, nuclear war, or a super volcano eruption poses as much, if not more of an existential risk than climate change.

tjpnz 3y ago

What technologies? Short of operating your own power grid you don't get a say in where the electrons powering your GPUs come from.

rudifjejjs 3y ago

If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one, then it’s predicated on the idea that if the majority of the world used the same resources as the wealthy then we’re done. It also ignores that the wealthy have the resources to address their living standards being ecologically sound and therefore those improving their lives will have access to clean solutions. Or you can blame liberals blaming the poor.

infamouscow 3y ago
> If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one The argument is based on evidence and reason, not emotions. > then it’s predicated on ... This isn't a hypothetical scenario -- these people overwhelmingly use fossil fuels rather than green energy. > It also ignores that the wealthy have the resources ... Nobody knows whether an astroid, nuclear war, or a super volcano eruption poses as much, if not more of an existential risk than climate change. And given multiple existential risks to the Earth with finite resources, we cannot fall to silly appeals to emotion when allocating these resources. If climate change activists were honest, they would be arguing for why climate change is more of an existential risk than the other existential risks to the planet. Instead, they prognosticate the end of the world rely entirely on sophistry to get their message across.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  We have much more control and certainty over the disaster we are in the process of creating than an extremely unlikely asteroid incident, over the same time frame. We can 100% ensure a climate disaster, or nearly 100% mitigate the worst case. The cost benefit analysis is clear. It costs less to mitigate climate change, and there are huge political and economic gains from removing our dependence on oil, rather than suffer unmitigated climate change. The hard part is coordination. We have the resources and economic incentives as a whole to take the best path. But our political and economic systems are not as sophisticated, in terms of translating the benefits of change to individual actors, as the problem requires. Externalized damage is profitable to powerful corporations, and even customers, in the short run. But we need political systems to more reliably set limits, AND provide the incentives, that would result in CFO’s at the most relevant corporations welcoming the change too. To a first approximation, the transition from fossil fuels by fossil fuel companies will be set by those companies’ CFOs. Make it less profitable to stay with fossil fuels, and make it so profitable for energy companies to supply other forms of energy, that those CFO’s get on board and things will change very fast. Share the economic value of a change with the most important players, as apposed to fighting them, and it will happen. Pragmatism wins.