←back to thread

Major reversal in ocean circulation detected in the Southern Ocean

(www.icm.csic.es)
480 points riffraff | 7 comments | 04 Jul 25 04:52 UTC | HN request time: 1.478s | source | bottom
Show context
dang ◴[04 Jul 25 09:51 UTC] No.44463006[source]▶
[stub for offtopicness]
replies(15): >>44461279 #>>44461280 #>>44461309 #>>44461334 #>>44461385 #>>44461408 #>>44461448 #>>44461634 #>>44461664 #>>44461731 #>>44461790 #>>44462060 #>>44462362 #>>44462565 #>>44462687 #
saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 08:17 UTC] No.44462362[source]▶
In related news:

* Data centers powering artificial intelligence could use more electricity than entire cities [0]

* Google’s emissions up 51% as AI electricity demand derails efforts to go green [1]

* AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand [2]

It is a doomsday cult in the most literal sense.

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/23/data-centers-powering-ai-cou...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/google-em...

[2] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-...

replies(11): >>44462429 #>>44462451 #>>44462452 #>>44462511 #>>44462554 #>>44462564 #>>44462814 #>>44462819 #>>44462877 #>>44462879 #>>44463041 #
dottjt ◴[04 Jul 25 08:29 UTC] No.44462429[source]▶
Not that I necessarily believe it, but isn't the rationale that technology allows us to scale without the need for additional humans? A bit in the same way that oil provides us many multiples of manpower?

So for example, if AI can replace the need for additional humans, then overall we're using net less energy?

replies(5): >>44462449 #>>44462454 #>>44462458 #>>44462476 #>>44462509 #
atwrk ◴[04 Jul 25 08:41 UTC] No.44462509[source]▶
Whose rationale? More efficiency leading to less resource use never happened, it always leads to more resource use (jevons paradox).

AI companies currently simply are a major contributor to climate crisis, justified by racing for future riches for a few people, provided by some imaginary moat. Probably right near the one built by Uber.

replies(1): >>44462578 #
1. qwertox ◴[04 Jul 25 08:52 UTC] No.44462578[source]▶
> it always leads to more resource use

It does, but this due to the demand created by humans. If you create a technologically advanced civilization, with robots doing a lot of the work, and considering their lack of desire to own things like pretty houses, it could be possible to scale down civilization to a few select millions in such a way that the entire system is then respecting earth's resources.

If you were to ship a big group of people through the galaxy, you'd also have to put some constraints on how many people will be on that ship, yet it will have to function regardless of how little people exist on that ship. The same could be applied to earth.

This would also give animals more room on this planet.

replies(1): >>44462591 #
2. saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 08:53 UTC] No.44462591[source]▶
How are you envisioning this "scaling down"? Chinese-Style One Child Policy? Large scale purge?
replies(2): >>44462667 #>>44462714 #
3. qwertox ◴[04 Jul 25 09:04 UTC] No.44462667[source]▶
No vision here, but it looks like developed countries are already working on it by themselves, with the demographic change we're able to observe. If that were the way, strong borders would need to be built.
replies(1): >>44462695 #
4. saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 09:07 UTC] No.44462695{3}[source]▶
What about the not developed countries? That's where most of the population growth is happening.

Should the developed world do frequent culls of the less fortunate in addition to the strong borders?

replies(1): >>44462739 #
5. guappa ◴[04 Jul 25 09:10 UTC] No.44462714[source]▶
Maybe what trump is doing is it
6. qwertox ◴[04 Jul 25 09:14 UTC] No.44462739{4}[source]▶
IDK. Maybe let them develop until they also reach the state of lack of desire to procreate.
replies(1): >>44462751 #
7. saubeidl ◴[04 Jul 25 09:16 UTC] No.44462751{5}[source]▶
That's what China has been doing. It's greatly increased its emissions.