☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 13
The fallacy here is the assumption that if LLMs didn’t exist then we wouldn’t find other ways to use that power.
Show threadOceanDec 13
That’s not a fallacy. REDUCE, reuse, recycle. We shouldn’t be looking for new ways to consume more energy or celebrating massive infrastructure projects to power chat bots. The project is cool though
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Yes, it is a fallacy because the problem is with the economy system as opposed to a specific technology. The liberal tendency often defaults to a form of procedural opposition such as voting against, boycotting, or attempting to regulate a problem out of existence without seizing the means to effect meaningful change. It’s an idealist mindset that mistakes symbolic resistance for tangible action. Capitalism is a a system based around consumption, and it will continue to use up resources at an accelerating rate regardless of what specific technology is driving the consumption.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] @[email protected] well it's actually China that is using by far the most fossil fuels in the world. US has the largest AI build-out, China is second place. And don't insult the Chinese by calling them capitalist please.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

That’s just saying that China is one of the most populous countries in the world that also happens to be a global manufacturing hub. China still uses fossil fuels, but I think it’s fair to call it an electrostate at this point.

Finally, it’s also worth noting that China has a concrete plan for becoming carbon neutral, which it’s already ahead of

China’s carbon emissions set for structural decline from next year

Emissions by world’s most polluting country could peak this year after surge in clean energy investments

The Guardian
Dec 14 at 1:14amWeb
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] the point is not whether it is justified, the point is that it is not capitalism. It is maximum power principle.
That any organism will try to maximize its energy usage in any ecosystem like deer will eat all the forest if given the chance. It's the same thing with humans. If someone lowers their fossil fuel consumption in one area, another area will make it go up until we run out. But we've been on a plateau for years and it's starting to decline and we should see global decline by 2030. And the 2030s are going to be the interesting times of the Chinese proverb.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
The point is that capitalist relations are absolutely the problem here. Social systems do not have to be built around consumption. You’re also talking about natural systems that evolve based on selection pressures as opposed to systems we design consciously.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] There was absolutely no difference in the technocratic Soviet Union either. It was all based on energy economy and once the Soviet Union peaked everything went downhill and it crashed. And you know, my grandfather built those computers and my grandmother programmed them and my mother programmed them. The ones in the Soviet Union that managed the five-year plan. Obviously on a team of people, we weren't the only ones. So, you know, I have vested interest in it having worked, but the energy is what matters and it's distributism that saves the day. China is more distributed than almost any other modern nation. I think India probably is one of the few that has more land distribution. And basically the more land distribution the higher the survival chances once the fossil fuels go away. In the West it's looking since only 1 to 3% of people only land that they can grow food on maybe only 5% will survive.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Having grown up in USSR, I know there was in fact a huge difference. The economy wasn’t structured around consumption, goods were built to last. People weren’t spending their time constantly shopping and consuming things. The idea that USSR was destined to collapse is also pure nonsense. There were plenty of different ways it could’ve developed. USSR certainly didn’t collapse because it was running out of energy.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] Running out of energy is what was making everything fall apart. When the energy was growing, any kind of gap could be filled with more energy. But after it started declining, the gaps just got bigger. Yeah, they could have decided to become compassionate and think about how to live in a lower energy world, but they refused. And so the collapse, it was a combination of geopolitical factors, but it was also a refusal to adapt. China is smart. They have a very big rural promotion program. They can tell when someone is smart and knows what they're talking about. I meet with the leading scientists on energy and resources around the world every month. You can check out the YouTube channel of my name if you want.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Except USSR didn’t run out of energy.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] Here you can see the attached image. Gorbachev and Yeltsin were the result of the oil decline.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Again, I’m explaining to you that society is a conscious and intentional construct that we make. USSR could have made changes in a similar way China did to move in a different direction. As your own chart shows, there was no shortage of energy as output rebounded. The problems were political and with the nature of the way the economy was structured.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] It's worth noting that China's electricity is 29% of their energy consumption and that renewables make 33% of that. And so overall, China is about 9 to 10% renewables. Which is a higher percentage than most of the world, but still after fossil fuels that's a 10x decline in energy consumption. Whereas most of the world is closer to 20x decline.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
First of all, carbon footprint in China is already far lower than in any developed country. Second, as I already pointed out, most countries simply outsourced their production to China.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] Carbon footprint is just like a globalist metric that has no bearing on the survivability of the majority of people over the next 10 to 15 years. The main metric that actually matters is land distribution. And how what percentage of the population has access to agricultural land where they can grow enough food to sustain themselves and their families. In China that number is 55%, which is very good. In Russia it's 30%, but unfortunately it's falling. It's going in the wrong direction. Whereas in the West it's 1 to 5 percent It's quite possible many will perish the majority
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Carbon footprint shows how much energy is being used per capita. Population density is way past the point where it’s practical for people to live off the land in some subsistence living scenario. What is more likely to happen is that we’ll see things like indoor farming being developed so that cities can feed themselves. This will become particularly important as climate continues to deteriorate, as indoor farms will make it possible to have stable environment to grow food in.
Show threadAndrii ZvoryginDec 14
@[email protected] indoor farming is much more energy intensive. You can't defy the laws of physics sorry. Energy decline is certain, all feasts come to an end. The longer you stay in the denial and refuse to adapt the worse it is for you and your kindred. It is extremely practical to have land distribution because we have much better technology to make it possible, like high speed communication, local large language models, and permaculture. Huge percentage of food in Russia is already produced on small family plots. It is actually the only good outcome available that makes sense with the geophysical constraints on energy.
Show thread☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Dec 14
Nobody is talking about defying laws of physics here. Your whole premise rests on fossil fuels running out and being essential for energy production. This is simply false.