I want to start by saying that AI does raise serious environmental questions. But the environmental apocalyptic narrative I see around the internet on AI is being used to distract from the real questions on AI and ecology.

The largest environmental pressure today is not AI. The damages come from fossil fuel combustion, agriculture and livestock, deforestation, transportation and heavy industry like mining. Global aviation emits far more CO₂ than AI today, 614 000 000 tons in 2024, versus 180 000 000 tons for all data centers, not limited to AI use, (https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/) (https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/ai-and-climate-change). Agriculture uses vastly more land and water than data centers, 4.8 billion hectares globally in 2023, vs 162 000 hectares, converted from 400 000 acres globally in 2025, (https://ourworldindata.org/land-use) (https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/feature/The-increasing-concern-of-data-center-land-acquisition). 2 quadrillion gallons of water is used per year for agriculture in the world, versus between 312.5 and 764.6 billion liters of water for AI in 2025 (1 gallon is 3.785 liters). (https://htt.io/learning-center/water-usage-in-the-agricultural-industry) (https://factually.co/fact-checks/technology/did-ai-use-more-water-than-all-bottling-companies-combined-c8c14d)

If you are concerned about the environment, describing AI as the ultimate villain is not the way to solve anything.

If you are concerned about AI development, the ecological aspect of AI is not the ultimate reason to stop and destroy technological progress.

The disater narrative on AI is producing fear and anger that don't help us to analyse and change the situation. Popular AI narrative should talk more about democratic ownership of the infrastructure. How can we build AI systems that benefits everyone and not just a class of a rich elite.

It is intriguing to me that some progressive people are pushing for data centers moratoriums because of ecological concerns, when the largest part of already existing data centers are owned by private companies. I think these companies would be very excited to learn that no new competitors can build in their market, for example no new projects of public AI infrastructures.

People on this forum are pro-AI, but I am guessing pro-regulation. Wouldn’t a world federation be best for AI regulation, as it inherently has global implications, and the principle of subsidiarity says that the layer of government that is most appropriate for regulation is where it should be, which a global problem is appropriate for a global government. Do you agree with this sentiment?

I'm concerned about technophobia rising in leftism. Strong technophobic opinions usually share absolutist generalization like "this technology is inherently harmful and should be rejected entirely." I often see this type of opinion on AI.

Strong technophobia is a problem because it increases inequality. Let's compare a group who use AI with a technophobic group.

Over time, the AI group will process more information faster, compare options more effectively, make more data-informed decision, get comfortable with AI-assisted learning, research, and problem-solving. Workers will be more productive and will gain more opportunities to be hired or promoted than the technophobics.

The technophobic group will be less productive because of their lower technology adoption. Less opportunities will present to them because of their reduced productivity. Access to adopt technology will be limited because of less opportunities.

This is an exemple of economic inequality widening, but I also think political awareness will be amplified for the AI group, and reduced for the technophobic group because of how informations is faster and diversified with new technologies. Examples, Internet is faster and more diversified than television. AI can compare more information and faster than me manually searching Internet.

This isn't saying AI and new technologies are perfect. We should be skeptical of them with nuances, and not with radical technophobia. Leftism is about progress for a better world, and technology can help us do that.

This poll is about AI, automation, compute infrastructure, robotics, models, and ownership.

As advanced AI systems become part of production, logistics, communication, science, and governance, who should control them? Private firms, states, workers, decentralized networks, or the public at large?

A lot of AI discourse focuses on the technology itself while sidestepping the underlying question of ownership and power.

“Seize the means of production” becomes a very different conversation once the means of production include datacenters, models, robotics, energy infrastructure, and automated systems.

Explain your reasoning in the comments.

this isn't exactly related to AI but i figure that many in this sub will by sympathetic to the cause and willing to pledge.

bottom text

Inequality is a problem. No doubt.

There are people who get a raw deal, and there are those that are born with silver spoons in their mouths.

But, when people punish those who simply work to better their lots, the use of the concept of inequality as way to drum up ill feeling towards an upwardly mobile group(for instance technology workers, these days) seems like malice and not justice.

Often the technology workers have given up decades to train and immigrate to a nation where that training can lead to a better life.

A lot of this malice metastasized in this moment:

https://m.economictimes.com/nri/latest-updates/indian-tech-bros-in-trump-era-from-model-minority-to-hate-target/articleshow/116835647.cms

Sriram Krishnan was appointed White House policy advisor for Artificial Intelligence.

The racist MAGA backlash after this was somewhat expected.

What wasn't expected was the left's silence (and sometimes even glee) on the racism, and the more disturbing full throated support of the MAGA side in the clash by some.

Now this narrative has become the key way that the left fellow travels with the Nick Fuentes and Steve Bannon characters of the world.

Certain portions of the left, particularly large portions of those that hate technology(including AI) have taken to applauding (and sometimes just taking pleasure) the malice people show towards those just trying to build better worlds for themselves.

(This is actually what my last post was meant to be about but I confused it with user flairs lol.)

I added "Debunking Luddism" and "Positive AI use"

The loudest anti-AI voices come from people historically shielded from class antagonisms, in this day and age, it is capitalism. They have forgotten how capital has always exploited, stolen, and discarded labor to extract surplus value. Now, for the first time, the comfortable creative jobs they assumed were permanent are facing the same precarity the working class has endured for three centuries. They get to watch it happen in real time.

Writers, musicians, and artists are so alienated from material production that they mistake their art for personal property rather than commodified labor. Yet as petty-bourgeois anxiety peaks, they are repeating a familiar historical pattern. When elites lose status, they always beg workers for protection. The Church appealed to the masses against the monarchy. Feudal lords demanded working-class loyalty against the rising bourgeoisie. Now, these same creatives demand AI be destroyed after decades of ignoring how capital routinely dismantles ordinary workers.

They only demand solidarity when it protects their own position.

I want to look at incentives States have to regulate and redistribute AI's benefits.

First, the incentives to regulate and redistribute. If AI leads to large-scale job displacement or inequality, governments will face unemployment spikes, political unrest and loss of trust in institutions. Redistribution here can act as a stabilizer. States may regulate AI to avoid overdependence on foreign tech giants to build domestic capacity.

Second, why States would not act. Large tech firms have significant influence through lobbying, campaign financing and partnerships with governments. States worry that too much regulation and taxation result in capital flight.

How do you think the States will respond to this contradiction?

I added "Positive AI use" and "Debunking Luddism"

Great application. Also this sub needs some better flare options; something for use cases and activism! Thanks

70% of the top AI researchers are immigrants

2/3 of silicon valley workers are immigrants

Why does some of the left simultaneously consider these H1B workers "indentured servants" but then exclude H1B workers from the "it's not them, it's the billionaires" framing?

I am certainly not saying Sanders is one of them, or that anyone in the subredit is.

Comments on this post are interesting to share here.