Not debunked, misreported
The water usage thing was debunked and really needs to stop being used. It just invalidates the argument when used.
Fun fact: The California almond industry uses more water than AI datacenters.
molehill_siesta@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 hours ago
Mordikan@kbin.earth 22 hours ago
There's been lots of reports done on the subject. In the end, low estimates put it between 68-75 billion gallons annually, high estimates closer to 230 billion gallons. That seems like a lot, right? The USDA reports total agricultural usage at 26.4 trillion gallons. That means 0.88% of the water used for ag.
This is where the the argument usually breaks down because someone will argue that:
- Water is a scarce resource
- US-Ag provides something of substance
If it is a scarce resource, than why is only 0.88% of that resource important enough to save? That then transitions to providing something useful, but usefulness doesn't magically remove the scarcity that exists. Is destroying the resource for almonds really a valid reason?
AI datacenter water consumption does have a footprint (especially when factoring in hydropower used not just cooling), but to say it's "draining lakes" or destroying the environment while ignoring everything else is just bad faith.
krakloskewm@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
Trying to make nuanced arguments is pointless with these people.
Anything less than vitriolic hatred is zealously attacked.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
AI datacenter water consumption does have a footprint (especially when factoring in hydropower used not just cooling), but to say it’s “draining lakes” or destroying the environment while ignoring everything else is just bad faith.
Brushing it aside just because other matured industry does worst is not only bad faith, it’s also whataboutism. These AI datacenter only exists for about a few years, and they’re building more. It’s not only water usage, it’s known to produce noise, and also consume a lot of power that caused a price hike.
Just because wild fire is burning hectares of land every year doesn’t make slash and burn an ok practice.
Or you know, we can try stopping both.
Mordikan@kbin.earth 17 hours ago
I'm highlighting the fact that none of these other points are ever mentioned. Only the debunked one is mentioned. That's by definition is not whataboutism as I don't have to address the validity of an already debunked claim.
FYI for you, if someone raises a point, that point gets debunked, and they keep raising it anyway as if it's still valid, then the other person pointing out "that specific claim was already debunked" is not committing whataboutism. That would be:
Rejecting a straw man: refusing to re-litigate a claim that has already been shown to be false.
Holding the line on established facts: insisting the conversation move past a disproven talking point.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
Using the worst widely known misuse of water as a straw man argument is just weak. The water usage from AI data centers is still pretty high, especially when you consider many are doing it without a permit, which is the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish.
Mordikan@kbin.earth 21 hours ago
That would only be a straw man if that is an oversimplification of the issue (not sure how "drained half a lake" is not a distortion/oversimplification, but I'm guessing you read that with blinders on). My following comment in this thread clearly shows that is not the case, so I'll take what you say as ad hominem.
If you really want to get into fallacies though, sure he's the others you committed:
The phrase "the actual issue and reason a lake could just vanish" implies there is only one real issue and that I'm ignoring it. This frames the debate as a binary: either you care about vanishing lakes or you're making pathetic arguments. That's a false dilemma.
Phrases like "a lake could just vanish" and "global warming isn't getting easier" are designed to evoke alarm and urgency without connecting them logically to the original point. That's appeal to emotion.
Your comment pivots from the original topic (water usage comparisons) to a different issue: "permitting... which is the actual issue". That's a red herring.
Motte and Bailey also as the whole "Well, they still use a lot and many are unpermitted" (that's a motte: a hard-to-dispute claim). Those shifts are used be people without a point to appear victorious without defending the original position.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
You‘re looking way too deep into a comment that incapsulates multiple facets of the issue just fine to diverge from your problematic „but it‘s not as bad as this worst misuse of water you‘ve ever heard of“ comparison. Your claim it‘s hard to verify is laughable as is your first semester social studies level of analyzing an argument. I guess one way of winning a debate is to just bore everyone to death so bravo.
Mordikan@kbin.earth 17 hours ago
Me: States facts based on USDA published data.
Internet Nobody:
Ad hominem means you have no actual point that can stand against what I said.
So, yes, I did win lol.