To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#2Banning adtech would be a good start.
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#3Banning adtech would be a good start.
That sounds like a sensible way to go about it to me. Suddenly all those services that nobody would actually pay for, that are simply designed to hook people and consume their time, would go away. A whole lot of services that people would actually pay for would suddenly change in focus because now they wouldn’t be driven my ad metrics and engagement metrics. E.g. You’d be paying for email so your email provider would just be a damn good email provider. So on.
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#4The author doesn't mention decarbonizing electricity in the first few paragraphs. He simply claims ML is driven by fossil-fuel electricity, when in reality the electricity mix for computation is increasingly green over time. Since computers don't need anything except electrons to run, it's all about power sector emissions here, and that's a bright spot in climate relative to transportation, industry, and agriculture emissions.
It'd be far more effective to have a Renewables revolution which pushes the scale of wind, solar, and batteries much higher. That would be far more cost-effective than a Luddite revolution which would ban computationally and data intensive practices in all the most valuable companies.
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#5It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to argue you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate. Which surprisingly attracts a fair amount of defenders for the Snapchat et-als.
What we can do is to be neutral to how it’s used, and instead make sure that electricity is appropriately priced to cover its externalities. That means a carbon tax. The same solution is still the right one for Bitcoin as it is for other silly computer uses mentioned in this article. If it becomes too expensive to deliver Snapchat when electricity is properly priced then Snapchat won’t exist. So on.
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#6It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to argue you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate. Which surprisingly attracts a fair…
> That means a carbon tax.
This seems like the most sensible route, rather than trying to dictate what is 'ok' and what is not.
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#7My cellphone (pocket computer) needs 10 Wh to run all day. For the same amount of energy, the lights in my office will run for 6 minutes. I'm not buying this "must decomputerize" pitch.
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#8Stop computering in places where fossile fuel is used for electricity. Build datacenters next to cheap renewable or nuclear energy and access cold air and water. There are hundreds of abandoned industry sites near lakes and rivers in Northern Europe for example.
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#9My cellphone (pocket computer) needs 10 Wh to run all day. For the same amount of energy, the lights in my office will run for 6 minutes. I'm not buying this "must decomputerize" pitch.
yes, but the masts, wifi, network and servers to support that consume a lot more than 10Wh
Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution
#10My cellphone (pocket computer) needs 10 Wh to run all day. For the same amount of energy, the lights in my office will run for 6 minutes. I'm not buying this "must decomputerize" pitch.
yes, but the masts, wifi, network and servers to support that consume a lot more than 10Wh
How much do they use compared to 24 hours of constant, valueless office lighting?