Yep. Also look at animal agriculture which we also do not need and is a huuuuuge amount crueller and orders of magnitude more polluting. Get rid of both and we’d be like a quarter of the way to fixing our emissions
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
906 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
87598 readers
3700 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is a popular notion, but I don't think it's correct, based on the precipitous drops in pollution that the world experienced after the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 COVID closures.
The collapse of the travel industry and the significant decrease in daily commuting after both of these events created unprecedented improvements in air quality and carbon output, and the animal herds weren't any smaller.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I don't understand why they don't use nuclear. We need to resist this.
load more comments
(4 replies)
That is fundamentally a problem with using polluting power sources, not AI. AI is just wasting huge amounts of power, but that wouldn't nearly be as big of a problem with clean power sources.
This is MAGA levels of bad take lol
load more comments
(9 replies)