Re: Environmental impact of Debian's AI usage

Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> Thu, 20 Aug 2026 14:02:58 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Quoting Aigars Mahinovs (2026-08-20 13:38:57)
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 at 13:25, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Aigars Mahinovs (2026-08-20 13:03:24)
> > > Zero is not a drop. Zero is zero. Zero times a hundred million is still
> > > zero.
> > >
> > > And if we start talking in far off hypotheticals - buildout of green
> > power
> > > AI datacenters can be even argued to be *good* for climate as their
> > demand
> > > accelerates buildout of the green grid and they also push the non-green
> > > datacenters out of the market.
> >
> > Yes, all else equal. But all else is not equal, and there is zero (pun
> > intended) indication that accelerating buildout of *whatever* energy
> > grid leads to less energy consumption.
> >
> 
> Well here we have a conflict of interest. I do *NOT* care about reducing
> energy consumption. I care about not destroying the environment. Only
> consumption of *non-green* energy contributes to destroying the
> environment. Using more green power from the solar panel on my roof does
> *not* contribute anything to destroying the environment (even if I use that
> power to run an AI agent on my video card). So I only care about reducing
> *non-green* energy consumption. And that is a *huge* difference in goals
> and this also changes everything when it comes to how to achieve these
> goals.
> 
> 
> > For a comparable complexity, see the attempt at solving road traffic
> > slowdown by widening the roads, which instead lead to more traffic:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
> 
> 
> Setting up more train lines and increacing the train frequency leads to
> more people travelling on trains. The thing is - that is not a bad thing.
> People travel more for business and for leisure, people see other cultures
> and wonders of the world and everyone is better off. It is consumption and
> yet it is also causing good. As long as the negative externalities of the
> fundamental process are minimized or even eliminated.
> 
> There is a strong anti-consumerism sub-movement in the overal environmental
> movement. Strong enough that people confuse the two. I do not believe that
> anti-consumerism is a constructive way forward for a trully long-term
> sustainable green policy.

Thanks. I find your pointing out that distinction helpful.

I am not convinced that consumerism is good, but I agree that in a
conversation where we try to reach consensus it is quite helpful to not
conflate possilbe goals even if some of us strive towards multiple
ones.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)