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 they just claimed as the main issue. Is destroying the resource for almonds really a valid reason? It’s just counterpointing their own argument.
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.
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. The issue even goes beyond this three, ram shortage, people getting fired because of the hype, the ever bloating AI investment, just to name a few.
Just because wild fire is burning hectares of land every year doesn’t make slash and burn an ok practice.
I’m highlighting the fact that none of these other points are ever mentioned. Only the debunked one is mentioned. That’s by definition 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.
Not debunked, misreported
https://youtube.com/watch?v=c0PSKqqFbeg
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:
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 they just claimed as the main issue. Is destroying the resource for almonds really a valid reason? It’s just counterpointing their own argument.
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.
Trying to make nuanced arguments is pointless with these people.
Anything less than vitriolic hatred is zealously attacked.
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. The issue even goes beyond this three, ram shortage, people getting fired because of the hype, the ever bloating AI investment, just to name a few.
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 say no to both.
I’m highlighting the fact that none of these other points are ever mentioned. Only the debunked one is mentioned. That’s by definition 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.