OOC, which past exactly do you want to go back to (and presumably stay at)?

We do. But currently we are choosing the Luddite way of doing things. Simply ignoring this fantastic technology is not a choice but economic suicide.

> So we have to give up our land, our water, our energy, even our planet just to usher in “the future”?

what are you referring to here? because it certainly is not data centers

Europe can opt out if they want, hyperscalers are building in South Asia, SEA and MENA where they get tax breaks. We'll see how that plays out for Europe.

I still haven't seen anybody demonstrating we have to do such thing.

We do have to spent a bit of each for any new tech advancement, but the alarmist, disproportionate claim you make is really not helping.

ArcelorMittal Dunkirk rolling & steel complex alone is ~450–550 hectares (more than colussus) and consume 2.23 TWh/year (colussus is ~2.6 TWh/year at 300 MW continuous load) and of course, water consumption for metal working is gigantic.

That's just ONE single facility in France.

I don't think anybody who understands the basics of civilization would want to go back before the Industrial Revolution.

Tech has a cost, and you usually pay a lot more at the begining of creating it.

Does it cause problems? Sure. Should we take it very seriously? Definitely.

But just repeating internet outrage is not a way to make good decisions.

Engineers, in general, tend to be libertarians and have a positive outlook on capitalism. They are, in general, people that have no roots, or any sense of culture or taste. Which is why they are uncritical towards what we call progress - they are not in a position where they could lose their culture, their roots, their home because they do not possess anything like that. They are men without qualities, revelling in their obsession with optimisation, mowing everything down that may introduce friction in their parasitic nature.

If we want to have a future, we have to ask the engineer question at first.