Seriously.
-
RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116085440408773572
Seriously. Every story of "AI will solve climate change" is a children's story to allow us to feel okay with not doing what we know needs doing to save the climate: Transform energy production and reduce use. You are grown ups. Act like it.
-
RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116085440408773572
Seriously. Every story of "AI will solve climate change" is a children's story to allow us to feel okay with not doing what we know needs doing to save the climate: Transform energy production and reduce use. You are grown ups. Act like it.
@tante I have been trying to explain this to my students, who always start from techno-optimism: we know how to address climate change. We don't need AI for that, we need the will to do it. AI will not magically produce cheap energy, on the contrary, the project energy and materials use is disastrous. And so on.
-
@tante I have been trying to explain this to my students, who always start from techno-optimism: we know how to address climate change. We don't need AI for that, we need the will to do it. AI will not magically produce cheap energy, on the contrary, the project energy and materials use is disastrous. And so on.
@wim_v12e exactly. It's not a research issue. It's a policy issue.
-
@tante I have been trying to explain this to my students, who always start from techno-optimism: we know how to address climate change. We don't need AI for that, we need the will to do it. AI will not magically produce cheap energy, on the contrary, the project energy and materials use is disastrous. And so on.
-
RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116085440408773572
Seriously. Every story of "AI will solve climate change" is a children's story to allow us to feel okay with not doing what we know needs doing to save the climate: Transform energy production and reduce use. You are grown ups. Act like it.
@tante If you think AI is going to cause big leaps in theoretical physics (yes people seriously think this) then it becomes sort of vaguely plausible. But:
1. That is an ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE "if"
2. We already have clean and cheaper energy sources. The existence of clean energy sources does not appear to be the problem -
@wim_v12e exactly. It's not a research issue. It's a policy issue.
-
@tante If you think AI is going to cause big leaps in theoretical physics (yes people seriously think this) then it becomes sort of vaguely plausible. But:
1. That is an ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE "if"
2. We already have clean and cheaper energy sources. The existence of clean energy sources does not appear to be the problem“ cleaner energy” is even the distraction. The fossil fuel used still increasing along with renewables.
The resource extraction going on for raw materials for everything fossil fuel based or not it’s just too darn much.
The cheapest stuff is the stuff we never dig up and burn. Removing the necessity for cars for daily activities and re-localizing food supplies eliminates the need for resources, done properly 90% of resource use
-
@tante If you think AI is going to cause big leaps in theoretical physics (yes people seriously think this) then it becomes sort of vaguely plausible. But:
1. That is an ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE "if"
2. We already have clean and cheaper energy sources. The existence of clean energy sources does not appear to be the problem@tomw @tante
Solar power
Even synthetic LPG made from seawater and waste carbon using Solar power. LPG is easier to store, transport and use in long distance vehicles than hydrogen,
LLM based AI is a a plagiarism machine adding to global warming.
AI in a more general sense only spots patterns matching known patterns. -
RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116085440408773572
Seriously. Every story of "AI will solve climate change" is a children's story to allow us to feel okay with not doing what we know needs doing to save the climate: Transform energy production and reduce use. You are grown ups. Act like it.
@tante It's all accelerationist in two ways, one to just make as much money as possible and punish those most likely to be gravely affected because you're just that sort of asshole and the other is because you're fully on board with the TESCREAL mindset of the superintelligent AI solving all that stuff or killing us anyway. Kinda fatalist overall but it's all in aid of simply not being willing to change at the industrial level as that'd affect profits and a reluctance to try given it'll be someone else's problem at the executive level.
-
RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116085440408773572
Seriously. Every story of "AI will solve climate change" is a children's story to allow us to feel okay with not doing what we know needs doing to save the climate: Transform energy production and reduce use. You are grown ups. Act like it.
@tante It's in fact every "$TECHNOLOGY_X will solve $GLOBAL_CRISIS_Y". No no no no no. No kind of technology will ever fix the polycrisis. The polycrisis, of which the climate catastrophe is just component crisis, is caused by collective human behaviour at global scale, and the only way to dampen the impact is to stop all this shit we're doing. We have exceeded the global growth limits, we're deep in ecological overshoot, and there is no way we can keep the global economy from collapsing. The economy is far too big for this planet, it will never be sustainable unless it shrinks by more than half, but that probably already means complete and utter collapse of the economy.
However, a collapse of the economy is far better than a collapse of the ecology. When the economy collapses, maybe 2/3 of all humans die if it get really bad. When the ecology collapses, we all die, Homo sapiens as a species goes extinct, no more humans ever again. A collapsed economy can be replaced by a new one within decades to centuries, a collapsed civilisation can be replaced by a new one within centuries to millennia, but if we're extinct, that's it, game over. -
@tante I have been trying to explain this to my students, who always start from techno-optimism: we know how to address climate change. We don't need AI for that, we need the will to do it. AI will not magically produce cheap energy, on the contrary, the project energy and materials use is disastrous. And so on.
@wim_v12e @tante I never started from techno-optimism, I was born in 1975 and began reading books about science and technology when I was only 5 or 6; by the time I was 12, I was already expecting the Industrial Age to collapse in the middle of the 21st century. While I have always been fascinated by technology, always been a big fan of computers and robots, I have also always understood that we humans are just another animal species, just a bunch of upright walking naked apes, and that we will one day go extinct just like all those dinosaurs and all the other lifeforms of ages long gone. Our age will end one day no matter what we do. I have also always understood that our Industrial Age has never been sustainable and that it's been digging its own grave ever since the first steam engine. This is one of the reasons why I haven't got any children, this is the main reason why at the age of 50 I still haven't got a driver's license (I never took any lessons because I always understood Automobilism as a dead end for civilisation).
There is no technological fix. The end of our type of civilisation is inevitable, and if humankind somehow survives as a species, there will never be another high-tech age like this one. The planet simply cannot sustain it. I also think that this is the Great Filter. There are no interstellar civilisations because soon* after any intelligent species undergoes an Industrial Revolution and begins using a lot of energy and raw materials, the damage to their biosphere becomes so bad that their civilisation collapses, and if they don't just go extinct, they stay at a much simpler technological level ever after.*maybe a few centuries, maybe even millennia; next to nothing on a geological timescale
-
“ cleaner energy” is even the distraction. The fossil fuel used still increasing along with renewables.
The resource extraction going on for raw materials for everything fossil fuel based or not it’s just too darn much.
The cheapest stuff is the stuff we never dig up and burn. Removing the necessity for cars for daily activities and re-localizing food supplies eliminates the need for resources, done properly 90% of resource use
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @tante I don't think clean energy is a distraction, since it does not involve 'burning' anything
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @tante I don't think clean energy is a distraction, since it does not involve 'burning' anything
In order to manufacture solar cells charcoal, and high-quality wood chips are used. China has caused tens of thousands of hectares of old growth forest to be chopped down in Southeast Asia. You still need fossil fuel to extract all the materials in their manufacture.
People have been propagandized into obsessing solely over CO2, and what is ignored is the ecological destruction and the continuous decline in the ratio of energy extracted for energy spent.
-
In order to manufacture solar cells charcoal, and high-quality wood chips are used. China has caused tens of thousands of hectares of old growth forest to be chopped down in Southeast Asia. You still need fossil fuel to extract all the materials in their manufacture.
People have been propagandized into obsessing solely over CO2, and what is ignored is the ecological destruction and the continuous decline in the ratio of energy extracted for energy spent.
The following article written by a manufacturing engineer, goes into the reality that resource exhaustion is inevitable. Extracting fossil fuels is becoming more and more energy intensive, but the renewable sector is also subject to the same kinds of reduction in return on investment.
Then include the ecocide from mining and purification. Even hydroelectric is not GHG free. Organic matter that decomposes in the reservoir generates methane.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/2025-the-year-of-peak-everything
-
The following article written by a manufacturing engineer, goes into the reality that resource exhaustion is inevitable. Extracting fossil fuels is becoming more and more energy intensive, but the renewable sector is also subject to the same kinds of reduction in return on investment.
Then include the ecocide from mining and purification. Even hydroelectric is not GHG free. Organic matter that decomposes in the reservoir generates methane.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/2025-the-year-of-peak-everything
These realities mean that the global economy is smashing right up against the physical limits of the planet. Swapping renewables for fossil fuels cannot be 100% and the size of the global economy itself the amount of energy it’s using and resource it’s using are rapidly reaching insolvency.
I can see why billionaires want to commit global genocide, and leave behind a planet they fantasize they can be populate with a their own genetic material
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
