The red run deregulated Texas Oblast allowed this shit. Kiss the water supplies and eventually the local economy good-bye.
Yay Texas the business-friendly state. As if billionaires aren’t raping the planet and all of us hard enough, the lone star state is always looking for way to pump their penises just a little bit bigger.
Anything from futurism.com should be immediately questioned.
it’s in texas though.
now all of a sudden we care about texas? what goes on in texas is as important to me as the affairs of a random tiktok influencer.
we’re fucked no matter if this data center is built or not.
It’s all worth it if my plastic “made in China” hula dancer arrives in time so I can put it on my cars dashboard. /s
It is safe to say im done with amazon deleting my account now I will not support them anymore I worked there and saw how bad workers are treated and used to order stuff from them often im done with them period.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Almost every day I have a fight with my gf over her Amazon account. I told her we can not proceed with a meaningful relationship if she doesn’t cancel it. Am I the crazy one?
Don’t lose your righteous principles over a woman. Especially since she is your gf, not a wife.
Also don’t take relationship advice from one random person on the internet.
Get at least two opinions and dump her.
Yes. The effect of one person’s passive boycott is nothing. If you’re serious enough to sabotage your own relationships over this, then perhaps focus instead on a greater boycott campaign, or actively pushing for legislation to actually make a difference.
Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.
Seconded. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” type shit. Pick your battles.
The effect of one person’s passive boycott is nothing.
This is some centrist capitalism-enabling shit. The sum of our individual efforts can amount to great things. Boycotts have been a great tool against fascism throughout history.
@Waffelmeister@lemmy.world is actually boycotting his relationship. I do not think it is wise for him to try to force her into submission rather than leading by a lifetime of example proving that one can get by just fine without Amazon and inspiring rather than coercing her to leave.
Honestly, this is more of a values disparity.
If two people have different values in some places in life, its normal to have adversity.
Just because it’s a capitalist themed value, doesnt mean this person is being irrational imo.
Mostly agree with you, leading by example is the way. I am amazon free, but my fucking goddamn husband, absolutely pays for prime for television (and almost never watches much there, very annoying) but, I have gotten him to change his buying habits, and he doesnt buy off amazon no where near what he used to, its like once a year now. Ive have been successful in teaching him to at least think about where he spends money, and who it supports. It took some time sure.
Yes, wtf man?
Imho there are different aspects to this: are they binge buying useless stuff on Amazon constantly, feeding into mindless consumerism? are there more ethical alternatives available?
If someone uses Amazon for something they can’t find anywhere else, or that the alternative costs so much more they can’t afford it, then I understand. If they are just a mindless consumer and they do nothing to change that, they lose my respect.
At the same time, if that is a reason you are considering to break up with someone, imo it tells your relationship is not very solid to start with.
If they are just a mindless consumer and they do nothing to change that, they lose my respect.
god I am like this too. I met a woman (on disability no less, so cash strapped) who ordered so much goddamn shit from temu, it was taking over her house. She then flipped on the latest reality “love” based TV show, and I did not make a friend that day. Got the hell outta there whew
Besides the US military, I’m sure.
Imagine the local government decides they can’t pull water anymore. Like several nuclear reactors having to shut down due to low river levels recently.
The picture of facility in vast desert is baffling.
Net zero doesn’t mean lowering pollution btw. Net zero means essentially cancelling out any pollution by planting trees, buying carbon credits, etc. It’s possible to be the biggest polluter and also net zero as a company. If that actually helps the planet is another story.
And we gotta be negative. Net 0 is a nice milestone on the way to build a future for our children.
Most “we plant a tree for every _____” things are just scams. They plant the trees, sometimes as monocrops that could never become a healthy forest, and usually without monitoring the trees or guaranteeing their survival into at least early-maturity.
Yep, and many of them just never plant any trees at all.
Trees get too much credit. It’s plankton in the ocean that absorbs like 70% of all co2
Don’t plankton mostly release that back into the atmosphere when they die though? Trees sequester it underground as roots and above ground as wood (assuming it doesnt burn, which is an increasingly ambitious assumption)
Well, as long as trees magically suck pollution out of the atmosphere in extremely high numbers, and sequester it for at least a few million years, that should be fine
Otherwise, we’re probably fucked.
In case it was not your intent to point this out with sarcasm, for anyone reading:
-
not all forests are created equal: new growth forests are simply not as good at long-term burial of carbon.
-
carbon sinks only work so long as the carbon stays sunk, so if a tree dies and rots before it’s buried, all of that carbon just goes back to the atmosphere, except a lot of it is now methane, which is MANY times worse than CO2.
-
this means that it is possible for a poorly - managed tree to actually be an effective carbon source for the purpose of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a sink, since a single molecule of methane can do the damage of a hundred molecules of carbon dioxide.
-
the largest carbon sink on earth is not the forests, but the ocean, and that carbon only really has two ways out: back into the atmosphere, or buried at the bottom in the calcareous ooze. Now if you really want to understand how fucked we are, read up on the following:
- Carbonate Compensation Depth (see how it relates to the amount of calcareous ooze being buried in the ocean)
- Methane Clathrate Hydrate
- Permafrost Methane
-
i dont trees can safely do it fast enough. also its mostly co2 , pollution is a different matter. Also algae, phytoplankton make half of the carbon capture as well, a net benefit when they become marine snow and sink to the bottom of the ocean.
Call Johnny Silverhand.
At this rate we are gonna have to mass clone Johnny’s engram. 1 nuke is not enough.
I know this will be buried but it seems Ai isn’t worth anything really if these giant complexes are the price. Just straight up monetarily, who benefits?
Fossil fuel companies. Waha natural gas prices are super depressed in that area so it would be a big boon to the pricing environment there.
These companies are all racing to dominate the market. Eventually one will win, largely through government contracts. Then all the infrastructure will be used to further propagandize, kill and spy on us.
looks like they are aiming for most govt contract= mass AI surveillance as a constant influx of profit, while they saw commercial use as a total failure, since nobody wants to pay for it, and the growing resentment against AI.
The company benefits by convincing investors that is still growing and innovating. If investors think they are still growing their stock prices go up. If their stock prices go up then they can use their stock as an asset to borrow against or as a form of payment in lieu of cash. Stock is particularly useful to a company as a medium of exchange because they can just make more. But they can only do that without tanking the value if people are buying, and they can only keep people buying if they think the price will go up, and the only thing the price will go up if they think the company is going to become more profitable in the future.
This is basically Cory Doctrow’s argument in his latest book.
It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.
That’s not lost on the tech giant. But as Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan told the NYT, the “world looks different now than when we co-founded the climate pledge.”
What the fuck? They looked at the world recently and said “yeah, climate change isn’t as much of a problem as it was before”?!?
They mean politically, they can get away with this now without blownack, they never gave one single shit about the climate
The same company that will same day deliver a single tube of toothpaste to my door doesn’t care about carbon emissions? What?
On one hand that sounds bad, but if that delivery driver is dropping off enough things in one run that would have been individual people driving to a store, does it balance out?
No, they looked at the blatant corruption from Fatboy McKiddieFiddlers regime and figured, “eh, what’s the point of pretending to give a shit. No fucker has got the balls to stop us from fucking thing up.”
“current gov allows us to do anything so we don’t care anymore because that,'s cheaper”
It’s those pesky Canadians again, it’s all their fault for mismanaging the fires, not the fact we are cooking ourselves alive.
Or maybe “eh, it’s fucked anyways, let’s make red line go up”.
Don’t forget to use your paper straws people! It’s the average person that causes harm to the climate, not businesses. Maybe we should give them more tax breaks.
And don’t forget to vote for the lesser evil party that will allow amazon to build just a dozen of these enormous datacenters instead of even more
You’re going to be surprised when you find out who consumes what businesses produce…
“Yet you live in society, curious.”
Not only that, actively consume products and blame the creators of the products for the consequences.
I don’t know, if you actively are reducing your shopping from amazon and try to stay away from their products, I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite for criticising them. And many people now a days are doing just that, so you can’t really assume right from the start that a person is being hypocritical.
Amazon is a seller, they don’t manufacture almost anything, but that’s beside the point. It’s not about the individual. I can blame either BP for drilling for oil, or the millions of people who refuse to:
- drive an EV
- ordering the more expensive but locally manufactured products that don’t need that much transportation
- vote for walkable cities and public transportation
- simply consume less stuff
That would require introspection, and maybe accepting responsibility. It’s easier to live in a world that the BP’s CEO is the bad one and me and all of my friends are blameless victims.
Billionaires can only burn so much oil with their private planes and yachts, they don’t consume 100 million barrels per day.
Retrospection is always nice and needed and consumption habits definitely need to change. However there is something to be said of someone who single handedly and deliberately pushes the world towards more and more unsustainable consumption habits because they are playing the world like they are playing a game of monopoly. Imagine opening a supermarket chain in a town with local shops and driving others out of business by creating unfair competition with very low prices (by providing goods from countries with lower wages and questionable production standards). Sure you can also blame the local consumers for being selfish and not owning their community but in some cases people actually have to choose between cheaper grocery prices vs other essentials. And now in this case you are comparing someone who is being selfish because it becomes a matter of providing yourself and your kids with basic necessities vs someone who already has billions but is driving even less sustainable consumption practices because it makes them more money. To me it is clear in this case on whom the bigger part of the blame falls to. Educate people and ask them to do retrospection yes but as long as people like billionaires exist, they will actively look for ways to exploit the system. So they should not exist.
Billionaires can only burn so much oil with their private planes and yachts
Everything aside, if someone is personally consuming yearly the fuel equivalent of hundreds of people, I can still call them a much more selfish person even though on a grander scale that particular impact is negligible compared to totality of commercial flights.
BUT it was ALSO create THREE whole jobs so it’s WORTH it!
