3 ms·

Well the thing with the livestock is that you have to give a cow water. Datacenters do not need water. It is just slightly cheaper for them than cooling with e

by zug_zug 2mo ago

Well the thing with the livestock is that you have to give a cow water. Datacenters do not need water. It is just slightly cheaper for them than cooling with electricity. Datacenters should be required by law to pay to build adequate power generation and infrastructure to pay for their consumption, and ideally in a way where it isn't a ghastly eyesore.

jp191919 2mo ago
We do not need meat.
- zug_zug 2mo ago
  Datacenters have a readily available substitute to water if they just make less profit. I'm not giving up my meat so that datacenters can use it for cooling, if that's what you're suggesting.
  - raincole 2mo ago
    So? Many people are not willing to give up their cloud services either? And there are other kinds of meat that cost less water to produce. I don't think someone who isn't willing to give up beef for chicken is at a higher moral ground than someone who wants cheap tokens.
  - chneu 2mo ago
    Give up your meat consumption because it's more about societal excess than anything else. Meat is and mostly always has been(in euro societies) a luxury item meant mostly for the rich. Capitalism turned meat into a MUST HAVE item for keeping up with the Joneses. We consume absolute insane amounts of meat nowadays, and we waste about half of it, just so people can feel good cuz theyre eating a high class excess meal. Lol most people throughout history didn't eat much meat. It's wild how modern western people refuse to see how we'll destroy the planet trying to feed 8 billion people with the most inefficient method of creating calories(beef). The inefficiency IS THE POINT.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    From the above stats, a 2.3% change to USA meat consumption, up or down, has the same impact as a 100% change to data centre water consumption, up or down. If I read the USDA stats correctly, US red meat and poultry production went up about 5.6% from Jan-Jun 2025 to Jan-Jun 2026, i.e. the increased production of meat led to an increase in water use that was twice as much as the water use of all the data centres combined.
    - atmavatar 2mo ago
      It's not quite that simple. Most people who reduce/eliminate meat consumption are going to substitute something else rather than eat less, and what they substitute may be just as water intensive as the meat they replace. For example, if a person's meat diet is virtually all chicken (reasonable given prices lately), substituting the chicken for almonds is a net neutral change. Almonds use every bit as much water as chickens do. Granted, that may be an extreme example, as almonds are one of the more water-intensive crops, and chicken is one of the most water-efficient meats. There will likely be decent water savings in many cases, but at the very least, anything a person substitutes for their existing meat diet is going to use some water as well.
- lightedman 2mo ago
  In fact many humans need meat because the proper plant protein simply cannot grow/exist in their area. This is why we evolved to be omnivores. Basic biology laughs at your poorly-researched position.
  - jp191919 2mo ago
    I'm referring to the majority of the population that lives in modern developed areas.
- ghunio 2mo ago
  True. I was going to hate the environmental destruction being wrought for the purpose of funneling more of our wealth to a handful billionaires who will use the AI against us, but then I remembered how bad meat eaters are for the plight of the common man, and now data centers don’t seem so bad after all.
- LaSombra 2mo ago
  We do not need more datacenters as well.
citrin_ru 2mo ago
> Datacenters do not need water. It is just slightly cheaper for them than cooling with electricity. As long as electricity at least partially produced using fossil fuel I would prefer data-centers to use as little electricity as possible. There are regions which are getting plenty of rainfall on average (which can be collected and stored) or were getting some water from rivers will have negligible ecological impact. But currently DC operators have little incentives to choose DC location based on outdoor temperature or water availability and there are plenty of DCs in hot and arid regions.
- jandrewrogers 2mo ago
  > there are plenty of DCs in hot and arid regions Differences in air temperature are largely below the noise floor in terms of impact on data center cost. Slightly lower energy prices and other operational or capital costs are more than enough to offset significantly hotter climate. Arid climates improve evaporative cooling efficiency.
Ajedi32 2mo ago
You don't need a law to force people to pay for resources they consume; basic economics already ensures that. If there are externalities not already accounted for by that (increased demand for water/electricity driving up costs for others, noise, "eyesores", etc.) you could pass laws to ensure those costs are paid by the responsible party but that's not a datacenter-specific issue.
- zug_zug 2mo ago
  Don't quote theoretical econ idealism at us when our actual electricity rates are going up 20% or more per year. Increased demand absolutely DOES increase the cost both in theory and practice.
  - Ajedi32 2mo ago
    I... agree? Did you even read the comment you replied to?
- skinfaxi 2mo ago
  How does that work in a market where you are bidding amongst other participants and capacity is constrained? Supply is limited and demand is growing, the market response is to charge more.
  - Ajedi32 2mo ago
    Well, just off the top of my head... if you wanted to treat the increased prices caused by the spike in demand as an externality (and I agree that's not exactly the right way to think of it, but people seem determined to in this case and I can't really fault them for that given the practical effects of such price increases) I think the way to do that would be to give existing consumers futures contracts for water for the next ~10 years proportional to their existing usage. People could then either use the futures contracts to keep the price they pay for water the same as it was, or voluntarily reduce their water usage and sell the contracts to the datacenter for a profit. Same deal for power. This would of course be a bit complicated for most people to manage, so maybe instead of giving consumers the contracts directly you could have some intermediary manage the contracts for them with approximately the same result.
wraptile 2mo ago
> Well the thing with the livestock is that you have to give a cow water. you don't _need_ a cow though
- chneu 2mo ago
  Exactly. You also don't need to grow acres of grass in the desert to feed the cow, but we do that too. Most folks have highly distorted views of how animal agriculture works. It's disgusting and insanely inefficient.
- LaSombra 2mo ago
  As you don't _need_ a datacenter as well
ben_w 2mo ago
While I agree fully with this part: > Datacenters should be required by law to pay to build adequate power generation and infrastructure to pay for their consumption, and ideally in a way where it isn't a ghastly eyesore. Fact is, almost nobody "needs" meat in their diet, and even if all meat eaters did actually need it rather than merely want it, there are meats which use less than the average quantity of water. From the above stats, the mean American's loss of water due to unnecessary use of water for unnecessary meat raised in their territory, is about 43 times the mean American's loss of water due to the unnecessary water use of datacenters that are in their territory.
wraptile 2mo ago
> Datacenters should be required by law to pay to build adequate power generation and infrastructure to pay for their consumption I think we can all agree on this one yet this is not what's being argued in most discussions. What hangs up the discussion is the complexity of development e.g.: to build a datacenter it takes 1 year but to build energy infra it takes 5. So this complexity needs equally complex policy and people just don't have time for that when there's free range raging served right to your palm screen.

by zug_zug 2mo ago

jp191919 2mo ago

We do not need meat.

zug_zug 2mo ago
Datacenters have a readily available substitute to water if they just make less profit. I'm not giving up my meat so that datacenters can use it for cooling, if that's what you're suggesting.
- raincole 2mo ago
  So? Many people are not willing to give up their cloud services either? And there are other kinds of meat that cost less water to produce. I don't think someone who isn't willing to give up beef for chicken is at a higher moral ground than someone who wants cheap tokens.
- chneu 2mo ago
  Give up your meat consumption because it's more about societal excess than anything else. Meat is and mostly always has been(in euro societies) a luxury item meant mostly for the rich. Capitalism turned meat into a MUST HAVE item for keeping up with the Joneses. We consume absolute insane amounts of meat nowadays, and we waste about half of it, just so people can feel good cuz theyre eating a high class excess meal. Lol most people throughout history didn't eat much meat. It's wild how modern western people refuse to see how we'll destroy the planet trying to feed 8 billion people with the most inefficient method of creating calories(beef). The inefficiency IS THE POINT.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  From the above stats, a 2.3% change to USA meat consumption, up or down, has the same impact as a 100% change to data centre water consumption, up or down. If I read the USDA stats correctly, US red meat and poultry production went up about 5.6% from Jan-Jun 2025 to Jan-Jun 2026, i.e. the increased production of meat led to an increase in water use that was twice as much as the water use of all the data centres combined.
  - atmavatar 2mo ago
    It's not quite that simple. Most people who reduce/eliminate meat consumption are going to substitute something else rather than eat less, and what they substitute may be just as water intensive as the meat they replace. For example, if a person's meat diet is virtually all chicken (reasonable given prices lately), substituting the chicken for almonds is a net neutral change. Almonds use every bit as much water as chickens do. Granted, that may be an extreme example, as almonds are one of the more water-intensive crops, and chicken is one of the most water-efficient meats. There will likely be decent water savings in many cases, but at the very least, anything a person substitutes for their existing meat diet is going to use some water as well.
lightedman 2mo ago
In fact many humans need meat because the proper plant protein simply cannot grow/exist in their area. This is why we evolved to be omnivores. Basic biology laughs at your poorly-researched position.
- jp191919 2mo ago
  I'm referring to the majority of the population that lives in modern developed areas.
ghunio 2mo ago
True. I was going to hate the environmental destruction being wrought for the purpose of funneling more of our wealth to a handful billionaires who will use the AI against us, but then I remembered how bad meat eaters are for the plight of the common man, and now data centers don’t seem so bad after all.
LaSombra 2mo ago
We do not need more datacenters as well.

citrin_ru 2mo ago

> Datacenters do not need water. It is just slightly cheaper for them than cooling with electricity. As long as electricity at least partially produced using fossil fuel I would prefer data-centers to use as little electricity as possible. There are regions which are getting plenty of rainfall on average (which can be collected and stored) or were getting some water from rivers will have negligible ecological impact. But currently DC operators have little incentives to choose DC location based on outdoor temperature or water availability and there are plenty of DCs in hot and arid regions.

jandrewrogers 2mo ago
> there are plenty of DCs in hot and arid regions Differences in air temperature are largely below the noise floor in terms of impact on data center cost. Slightly lower energy prices and other operational or capital costs are more than enough to offset significantly hotter climate. Arid climates improve evaporative cooling efficiency.

Ajedi32 2mo ago

You don't need a law to force people to pay for resources they consume; basic economics already ensures that. If there are externalities not already accounted for by that (increased demand for water/electricity driving up costs for others, noise, "eyesores", etc.) you could pass laws to ensure those costs are paid by the responsible party but that's not a datacenter-specific issue.

zug_zug 2mo ago
Don't quote theoretical econ idealism at us when our actual electricity rates are going up 20% or more per year. Increased demand absolutely DOES increase the cost both in theory and practice.
- Ajedi32 2mo ago
  I... agree? Did you even read the comment you replied to?
skinfaxi 2mo ago
How does that work in a market where you are bidding amongst other participants and capacity is constrained? Supply is limited and demand is growing, the market response is to charge more.
- Ajedi32 2mo ago
  Well, just off the top of my head... if you wanted to treat the increased prices caused by the spike in demand as an externality (and I agree that's not exactly the right way to think of it, but people seem determined to in this case and I can't really fault them for that given the practical effects of such price increases) I think the way to do that would be to give existing consumers futures contracts for water for the next ~10 years proportional to their existing usage. People could then either use the futures contracts to keep the price they pay for water the same as it was, or voluntarily reduce their water usage and sell the contracts to the datacenter for a profit. Same deal for power. This would of course be a bit complicated for most people to manage, so maybe instead of giving consumers the contracts directly you could have some intermediary manage the contracts for them with approximately the same result.

wraptile 2mo ago

> Well the thing with the livestock is that you have to give a cow water. you don't _need_ a cow though

chneu 2mo ago
Exactly. You also don't need to grow acres of grass in the desert to feed the cow, but we do that too. Most folks have highly distorted views of how animal agriculture works. It's disgusting and insanely inefficient.
LaSombra 2mo ago
As you don't _need_ a datacenter as well

ben_w 2mo ago

While I agree fully with this part: > Datacenters should be required by law to pay to build adequate power generation and infrastructure to pay for their consumption, and ideally in a way where it isn't a ghastly eyesore. Fact is, almost nobody "needs" meat in their diet, and even if all meat eaters did actually need it rather than merely want it, there are meats which use less than the average quantity of water. From the above stats, the mean American's loss of water due to unnecessary use of water for unnecessary meat raised in their territory, is about 43 times the mean American's loss of water due to the unnecessary water use of datacenters that are in their territory.

wraptile 2mo ago

> Datacenters should be required by law to pay to build adequate power generation and infrastructure to pay for their consumption I think we can all agree on this one yet this is not what's being argued in most discussions. What hangs up the discussion is the complexity of development e.g.: to build a datacenter it takes 1 year but to build energy infra it takes 5. So this complexity needs equally complex policy and people just don't have time for that when there's free range raging served right to your palm screen.