I suspect its popular in part, because it feels like fixing "the problem" without actually having to change your own behaviour at all. Don't need to change my gas guzzler, or fly less, or change your diet. I support the goal, but worry its a distraction.
The problem with political organizing in order to solve ecological or environmental problems is that it makes too much logical sense. For solving the problem, that is. It’s better to not build a data center in the first place than to build a data center and then fight against its use. It’s better to build and retrofit transportation architecture than to scold people who are not Work From Home workers to not drive to work. Which is why it gets attacked with non sequitors about feeling like you are solving the problem without having done your own personal penance.[1]
Your linked ChatGPT-structured listicle is sound in what it proposes for the individual, but spends no time motivating the change or balancing out of political organizing. Like how to balance individual action versus political action? A big fat nothing. The one single hinge: evErY cHanGe MatteRs. This trivial observation is supposed to balance nine individual-effort phrased points versus one limp-wristed political action point.
At least it admits its corporate stooge tradition by mentioning BP and “carbon footprint”.
We are told that we need a cutthroat and efficient economy for commodities. For sweaters and automobiles. But for not ruining the planet? We need to incentivize individuals to not-do-bad-things. These are not serious ideas.
> I support the goal, but worry its a distraction.
You support people opposing data centers. Presumably you think that building them is bad. And presumably pressure against data centers can help them not be built. Which means that you would get less of the bad things. And yet this development which can cause less of the bad things is a distraction? This isn’t really coherent.
[1]: Curiously this critique is about feeling like you are solving the problem without the consequence explicitly outlined as not solving the problem. Is feeling better while also helping solve the problem... a problem?
Not sure if it is really a "movement" but it is the first glimmer of something that transcends D-R polarization. Like if any election is perceived to be a referendum on data centers, data centers lose, and it doesn't matter if it is red state or blue state or if the candidate presents as lefty or righty.
I suspect its popular in part, because it feels like fixing "the problem" without actually having to change your own behaviour at all. Don't need to change my gas guzzler, or fly less, or change your diet. I support the goal, but worry its a distraction.
https://tuhat.net/@sbr/p/change-for-the-climate
What if AI can find a better solution in the future?
The problem with political organizing in order to solve ecological or environmental problems is that it makes too much logical sense. For solving the problem, that is. It’s better to not build a data center in the first place than to build a data center and then fight against its use. It’s better to build and retrofit transportation architecture than to scold people who are not Work From Home workers to not drive to work. Which is why it gets attacked with non sequitors about feeling like you are solving the problem without having done your own personal penance.[1]
Your linked ChatGPT-structured listicle is sound in what it proposes for the individual, but spends no time motivating the change or balancing out of political organizing. Like how to balance individual action versus political action? A big fat nothing. The one single hinge: evErY cHanGe MatteRs. This trivial observation is supposed to balance nine individual-effort phrased points versus one limp-wristed political action point.
At least it admits its corporate stooge tradition by mentioning BP and “carbon footprint”.
We are told that we need a cutthroat and efficient economy for commodities. For sweaters and automobiles. But for not ruining the planet? We need to incentivize individuals to not-do-bad-things. These are not serious ideas.
> I support the goal, but worry its a distraction.
You support people opposing data centers. Presumably you think that building them is bad. And presumably pressure against data centers can help them not be built. Which means that you would get less of the bad things. And yet this development which can cause less of the bad things is a distraction? This isn’t really coherent.
[1]: Curiously this critique is about feeling like you are solving the problem without the consequence explicitly outlined as not solving the problem. Is feeling better while also helping solve the problem... a problem?
Not sure if it is really a "movement" but it is the first glimmer of something that transcends D-R polarization. Like if any election is perceived to be a referendum on data centers, data centers lose, and it doesn't matter if it is red state or blue state or if the candidate presents as lefty or righty.