NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9699285" data-attributes="member: 42856">That's obvious that it won't work, but that's what we're doing anyway.That's probably what we should be doing, collectively. That isn't what we are doing, actually. Because eschewing convenient technologies or activities is a pain, and we collectively and individually aren't keen on inflicting pain on ourselves. The Kyoto protocol had an objective of reducing emissions by 5% compared to 1990, and the major polluting countries either didn't join the agreement, left it, or disregarded it, so collectively, we are now at +54% vs a -5% target (and the numbers are before AI datacenters emerged). Obviously, while there are people who say "we should do something", they are either in the minority (with the majority voting for governments that don't take the environment as a priority over comfort) or they are really concerned, but not ready to make the necessary sacrifices. If most people were doing it voluntarily, the emissions would have reduced even without a need for political enforcement. For example, AI users will probably be reluctant to say no to their AI, and oil producers are generally against stopping their fracking plants, and meat-lovers aren't ready to renounce their BBQ, and drivers are reluctant to say no to their individual cars, and fashionistas are reluctant to say no to their fast fashion, and plane travellers are probably reluctant to say no to their long distance holidays*... and in the end, very few people actually do something. But each of them is saying "maybe we should do something", thinking "maybe we should ban thing Y I don't use, but let's keep X that I love". That's human.* note that I am not even saying that people should have stopped doing these things to reach the Kyoto target, even just "not doing them more" would have been better. Domestic air travel in the US more than doubled in 2024 (852 millions) compared to 1990 (416 millions), for example. If collectively, we had eschewed harmful technologies and dialed back the use of others as you suggested, we'd be at the Kyoto target. While certainly not ideal, the observed result is that we don't do that. We humans generally don't remove technologies (or don't do anything uncomfortable) on the basis on environmental concerns. I won't go into politics, but I don't see a worldwide change in mentalities happening anytime soon. I hope for the future generations (and the people of the small insular countries) that geoengineering will be a thing, probably AI-assisted.</blockquote>

Verification