People have. That's a common objection to golf courses.
The difference here is that data centers are both economically and environmentally extractive. People in the community, or at least in the surrounding area, will play golf there. Data centers are purely extractive, and that's why they have become so galvanizing. It's transferring probably the only real asset these communities have left, their open spaces, directly to the elite.
What is the exact value proposition of AI as it exists right now for the average person who lives where these things are being built? They don't even get jobs. With golf, they can enjoy the outdoors and escape a little bit.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think a data center might just provide more temporary and permanent jobs than a golf course, and with likely higher mean and median wages.
The golf park isn't even the best natural-adjacent use of the space.
A regular park or a trail will service a significantly larger portion of the population than a private property that transfers wealth from the community to a single person or corporation.
>I'm not entirely certain, but I think a data center might just provide more temporary and permanent jobs than a golf course, and with likely higher mean and median wages.
Well, you're right to be uncertain. After they're built, once the crews that built them move on to the next one, they don't even bother to keep the lights on. They might hire private security guards to patrol the exterior, but that's hardly an infusion of capital into the community.
> The golf park isn't even the best natural-adjacent use of the space.
> A regular park or a trail will service a significantly larger portion of the population than a private property that transfers wealth from the community to a single person or corporation.
Ok. Then they can decide to build a nature trail instead. The local community should make the decision and not be coerced because someone from the coasts thinks that they're a minor annoyance that needs to be lectured on the future of humanity or whatever lessbad rational-du-jore is being peddled.
> going to go out on a limb here and guess that net-net, a datacenter provides more benefits to a broader spectrum of society than a golf course does.
Is that true locally though? Having a golf course nearby your home is better than the golf course just existing somewhere, at least if you play golf, but that is decidedly not true of data centers. You might benefit from at least some of them existing, but derive very little benefit from having one in your backyard and a lot of potential downsides.
> Having a golf course nearby your home is better than the golf course just existing somewhere, at least if you play golf, but that is decidedly not true of data centers.
Isn't that the standard NIMBY argument, which ensures nothing ever gets built? Who wants a power plant, or dump near their house? Even if there's some vague local benefit (eg. a dump that benefits the county), you could always make the argument to put it on the other side of the county or whatever.
> I've not seen a single politician calling for statewide bans on golf courses.
I've not seen a single state where anyone is trying to build a ton of new golf courses. There are around 140 being built in the whole country, and I think the most in any one state is under a dozen in Florida.
There are more than an order of magnitude more data centers under construction with some states having more data centers under constructions than the whole country has golf courses under construction.
I bet if you tried to build 2-300 golf courses at the same time in one state it would become an issue for state level politicians.
I seem to recall that data centers require orders of magnitude less water than a golf course too if you want to compare apples to apples.
Look, just say what you mean. If you think "AI is BAD" just say that, don't try to couch it in some disingenuous argument about water usage or climate change.
I did say what I meant. You overlooked the context.
The person I was replying to was trying to make inferences from the fact that data centers have become a statewide issue in some states but golf courses have not.
My point is that because golf courses are being built at a much lower rate than data centers they remain just local issues in most places. Try to build 200 golf courses at the same time in some state and I bet you'll see that get statewide attention.
No one would give a shit about two hundred golf courses being constructed in Texas.
Even with the massive data center build out, existing golf courses today use more water than all projected data centers globally are expected to use in 2030.
Also, the "pollution" from data centers is just "major construction project temporarily disrupts water table" not "facility is pumping random chemicals into the water".
That is to say, nothing about next door neighbors to a major construction project getting mud out of their well for a little while is unique to datacenters.
I did not say that golf courses are pollution free, but there is many degrees of magnitude difference between the mere possibility of illnesses becoming more common around golf courses and data centres that have to pay millions in fines as they are not following the rules.
I feel like you're constructing straw men arguments here despite the very obvious polluting behaviour of datacentres.
Go look up articles from mid to late 2010s. There's where you will find frustration about golf courses, during the time where water restrictions were being put on residential lawns. Do not conflate the more recent, more successful campaign of anti-data-center sentiment with the non-existence of a past campaign against golf courses. It existed, it just petered out.
Look, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either water consumption is a problem today, or it is not. If it is a problem, then golf courses are today a better target for people who want to solve the water problem than data centers. If water consumption is not a problem, then the data center's water consumption is not a problem.
if we limit the number of data centers so that it cannot exceed number of golf courses in any zipcode in america than this is a solid argument, otherwise it is strawman
I am not doing any such thing. You are pulling whataboutisms left and right, and I'm trying to get across that the lack of a successful campaign does not prove the lack of sentiment. You need to carefully pick which political battles to take and, more importantly, when to take them.
If you think the current data center installations have problems you want to be addressed, you don't also bring up golf course water usage, farmland water rights, residential lawns, factory runoff, and climate change effects on rainwater. You'd just be distracting from the conversation.
No, but someone yelling about data center water usage while clearly not giving a shit about the things that use way more water quickly make it clear that they’re either very ignorant, or this isn’t actually about water.
The left has long been opposed to excessively watered golf courses too. I could probably find another piece of The Economist calling them foolish for that as well, if I searched.
The "leftist" take is "we should seize the means of computation" not "we should protect intellectual property rights!"
The hate for data centers is a liberal thing, not a "leftist" take. Although, being against golf courses should be supported by everyone. Golf courses suck.
True but not campaigning against golf courses make anti data center campaigns look hypocritical.
My personal criticism of data centers is mostly regulatory failure. The tech companies are choosing random ass states and stealing land from poor farmers instead of the traditional data center states like Virginia mostly because of tax breaks. The local government is just as if not more responsible for the issues with data centers. It's easy however to just point fingers at big tech instead of he underlying market failures in a lot of the states. The traditional data center states almost always have a supply of clean energy and water with a proper regulatory framework.
Might as well say you're a hypocrite for calling these people hypocrites but not others, and unless you criticize all things at the same time, which is impossible, it's all magically invalid.
If you really cared about people calling things out, you would be focusing on other topics than datacenters because people call all kinds of things out all the time. That fact you only care about data centers is telling.
