5 ms·

Another data point. California pistachios consume about 500–600 billion gallons of water per year.

mattcantstop 4mo ago
I've always found this a weird comparison. There is no more important use of water than providing food. I love tech and earn my living from it, but the importance of food cannot be overstated.
- lbriner 4mo ago
  pistachios is not the same thing as "food" it is just a small percentage of it. "Food" is important, pistachios not so much.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- TheSoftwareGuy 4mo ago
  Its not a bad comparison because pistachios are a cash crop, not a staple crop. That is to say, pistachios aren't grown to keep people fed, they are grown for economic profit
- ch4s3 4mo ago
  I think the criticism here is that they're pumping that water in from the Colorado river based on a pricing schema that makes it artificially cheap t grow water intensive crops in a very arid region. If the pricing were modernized and rationalized those pistachios would be grown somewhere that has more rain fall. Moreover a lot of that water is transported with the pistachios out of the watershed so it creates 2nd order problems. You could also argue that Amazon data centers are crucial commercial infrastructure that used for a lot of logistics necessary to move food around.
- simonw 4mo ago
  There are a whole lot of foods that are incredibly wasteful if you truly care about water consumption. Saying "if it's edible then it doesn't matter how much water it uses, it's justified" isn't a good position to take.
- pb7 4mo ago
  You don't need pistachios. General compute is a few orders of magnitude more important to humanity's livelihood than pistachios.
- stetrain 4mo ago
  And some foods are a lot more water efficient than others to produce.
- ApolloFortyNine 4mo ago
  Almonds use more water for the same calories of nutrition compared to a grain, somewhere from 4-8x more depending on the source. Plus California was/is in a drought for years, that's why people bring up the almonds example.
- Robdel12 4mo ago
  You find growing an incredibly water heavy crop in a place that doesn’t have the water supply to do so a weird comparison? And it’s not even a food that’s needed, so you can’t stand on that either.
- nh23423fefe 4mo ago
  Hyperbolic people help me ignore their fake concerns.
tomcam 4mo ago
Because of this I always fix a piercing gaze on any pistachio that crosses my path
1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago
The pistachio meme How that data point is interpreted may depend on whether the reader or someone they know likes pistachios or not It might also depend on how the person views farmers versus how they view Silicon Valley companies And so on It's not intrinsically clear how a reader is going to interpret that data point without knowing something about the reader Will they opine that water use for some purpose is "worth it" or "not worth it" What do they think of pistachios What do they think of "AI" People might be OK with water use for pistachios but not for "AI" The _amount_ of water use may not be the differentiator. The differentiator might be the _purpose_ of the water use Food versus computers
- jason_oster 4mo ago
  Your argument is something along the lines of: 1. People dislike X, so a small amount of water being used for X is bad. 2. People like Y, so a large amount of water being used for Y is good. You can't draw any conclusions from this, apart that people dislike some things and like other things. The argument establishes no relation to water usage. That makes the argument against AI "an ethical one because of water usage" just a trope.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago
  The comments in this thread are hilarioisly nonsensical All the way up to the top comment that refers to a "water usage argument" Whats the argument Its an article reporting Amazon's data center water usage. It does not express an opinion on that number. It discusses so-called "tech" companies' reluctance to release water usage numbers 2.5B gallons. Its a number not an argument Facts are not arguments Why the secrecy around these numbers Why the defensiveness in HN replies
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago
    *hilariously
- 4mo ago

I've always found this a weird comparison. There is no more important use of water than providing food. I love tech and earn my living from it, but the importance of food cannot be overstated.

lbriner 4mo ago
pistachios is not the same thing as "food" it is just a small percentage of it. "Food" is important, pistachios not so much.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
TheSoftwareGuy 4mo ago
Its not a bad comparison because pistachios are a cash crop, not a staple crop. That is to say, pistachios aren't grown to keep people fed, they are grown for economic profit
ch4s3 4mo ago
I think the criticism here is that they're pumping that water in from the Colorado river based on a pricing schema that makes it artificially cheap t grow water intensive crops in a very arid region. If the pricing were modernized and rationalized those pistachios would be grown somewhere that has more rain fall. Moreover a lot of that water is transported with the pistachios out of the watershed so it creates 2nd order problems. You could also argue that Amazon data centers are crucial commercial infrastructure that used for a lot of logistics necessary to move food around.
simonw 4mo ago
There are a whole lot of foods that are incredibly wasteful if you truly care about water consumption. Saying "if it's edible then it doesn't matter how much water it uses, it's justified" isn't a good position to take.
pb7 4mo ago
You don't need pistachios. General compute is a few orders of magnitude more important to humanity's livelihood than pistachios.
stetrain 4mo ago
And some foods are a lot more water efficient than others to produce.
ApolloFortyNine 4mo ago
Almonds use more water for the same calories of nutrition compared to a grain, somewhere from 4-8x more depending on the source. Plus California was/is in a drought for years, that's why people bring up the almonds example.
Robdel12 4mo ago
You find growing an incredibly water heavy crop in a place that doesn’t have the water supply to do so a weird comparison? And it’s not even a food that’s needed, so you can’t stand on that either.
nh23423fefe 4mo ago
Hyperbolic people help me ignore their fake concerns.

tomcam 4mo ago

Because of this I always fix a piercing gaze on any pistachio that crosses my path

1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago

The pistachio meme How that data point is interpreted may depend on whether the reader or someone they know likes pistachios or not It might also depend on how the person views farmers versus how they view Silicon Valley companies And so on It's not intrinsically clear how a reader is going to interpret that data point without knowing something about the reader Will they opine that water use for some purpose is "worth it" or "not worth it" What do they think of pistachios What do they think of "AI" People might be OK with water use for pistachios but not for "AI" The _amount_ of water use may not be the differentiator. The differentiator might be the _purpose_ of the water use Food versus computers

jason_oster 4mo ago
Your argument is something along the lines of: 1. People dislike X, so a small amount of water being used for X is bad. 2. People like Y, so a large amount of water being used for Y is good. You can't draw any conclusions from this, apart that people dislike some things and like other things. The argument establishes no relation to water usage. That makes the argument against AI "an ethical one because of water usage" just a trope.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago
The comments in this thread are hilarioisly nonsensical All the way up to the top comment that refers to a "water usage argument" Whats the argument Its an article reporting Amazon's data center water usage. It does not express an opinion on that number. It discusses so-called "tech" companies' reluctance to release water usage numbers 2.5B gallons. Its a number not an argument Facts are not arguments Why the secrecy around these numbers Why the defensiveness in HN replies
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4mo ago
  *hilariously
4mo ago