Hi, Solid - 'Over time, the neutrality of truth with no allegiance to outcomes or 'sides' wins out...every time.'
Well said. In the spirit of that observation, I'd like to offer the thought that the OPEC nations, in slowly jacking up the price of fossil fuels, are actually doing the world a favour.
By that I mean: every increase in the price of fossil fuels speeds the exploration of, and implementation of, alternatives by making them more cost-effective.
Witness the re-emergence of 3-ton gas-guzzlers since the 70's: humanity, when faced with a cheap resource, will deplete it as quickly as possible, with no regard to the future.
The only consistent, fair and universally acceptable mechanism to moderate this unfortunate aspect of human behaviour is price. Never mind that such behaviour enriches the OPEC nations: that is not the point. Nor is the fact that the 'price' does not reflect the 'cost' of extraction, in many cases.
The same rule could be applied to internet usage; I would argue that escalating energy costs will soon find their way into the bottom lines of many providers.
It may be that competition, and energy cost disparities will distort the picture for some time, but eventually, the truth of your statement will prevail.
I'll pose a hypothetical.
Let's say that someone, somewhere, proposed a megafarm of servers, fuelled by nuclear power, in a remote and undesirable place. It would be linked by a humungous fiberoptic connection, and its independent existence would rob no one of power: sort of an IT Industrial Park.
How long do you think it will be, until we see something like it? Ask the people of California whether they'd like that: especially if the nuclear power was "somewhere else".
Regards,
Jim
Late edit - The question above does not deal with the unrealistic postponement of costs that you discussed: only the allocation of constrained resources (power) to an internet, that is, in many respects, transmitting 'trivial' information. |
