In 1975, a young engineer in the company that made Kodak film took the first picture on a handheld digital camera. Photography would never be the same again.
First, there's a substantial issue with how representative these environmentalists are from the general movement.
I do not have a way to say how representative such views of a typical environmentalist. I don't believe I am engaging in nut-picking and I am open to seeing counter-evidence. I came up with these links by searching for key phrases (e.g., methane emissions from cows) and people (e.g., Suzuki) from memory and there were many similar links to chose from. Do you believe these views are not representative? If so, what makes you think so?
But you seem to also confuse sources saying "Hey, this is creating a serious problem" and not wanting to have that thing at all.
This is a valid criticism. My view is that I use expressing concerns as a proxy to opposition. I admit, the Science.org article must be read uncharitably to support my point, but then a) I didn't expect anyone to engage me in good faith debate b) I was demonstrating a point rather than engaging in nuanced debate of the issue. Here is cleaner example:Northwest Indiana environmental activists oppose Nippon Steel's potential Gary Works investment.
there's a decent fraction of the environmental movement which really does seem stuck in a 1970s sort of "degrowth" or "antigrowth" attitude
I think you are downplaying this, or at the very least "decent faction" putting a lot of unpaid overtime in making your point. I see this aspect as corel tenant of environmentalism. That is, misanthropy is essential part of worship of Gaia.
What if
Then most of us would starve to death.
Do you agree then that those claims are true though?
I do not, because most of such claims presuppose that the environment is static and pristine. The reality is that there is a great deal of change without any human involvement and often times what humans do is insignificant. While I agree with the goal of protecting humanity's habitat, it ought to be viewed as such - our habitat that should be utilized for humanity's needs.
The issue I have with new datacenters is their expectation that the utilities should pay for the infrastructure and amortize it over 10s of years. But what if it's a bubble? (and it is) - the datacenters should pay for the infrastructure here and now, or everyone else is going to be stuck paying for it via higher rates in the future.
Fully agree. However, even if they agree to pay, there is no equipment (transformers, etc.) or manufacturing capacity to produce equipment fast enough to ramp energy production to meet the AI data center demand. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpEEDnV1gXw
The United Kingdom's Ofcom has sent yet another threatening letter to 4chan (a US company). After 4chan refused to pay fines to a foreign government, the United Kingdom says they are "expanding the scope of the investigation into 4chan".
Australia, UK, Germany are all working in different ways to undermine one of the core principles of Western Civilization — the right of free speech.
Obviously to anybody not utterly dumb (unlike you),
Stop pounding the table, we already know you have nothing of value to say.
one civilization will simply be replaced by another one
The entire 20th century history is a counter-example to your new argument. Hundreds of millions killed by various "simply be replaced by another one" and you still think that some kleptocracy is warrants tearing down the system. You are just another clueless rebel without a cause.
"Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain