At 25% PER YEAR, the growth of #data storage implies skyrocketing consumption of energy and materials, and is scary and unsustainable - by @gerrymcgovern
https://gerrymcgovern.com/data-growth-is-scary-and-unsustainable/
@alberto_cottica @gerrymcgovern
I don't understand what the problem is, there is a surge in this era because evidently the benefits of retaining data outweigh the costs: at some point their ratio will decrease as will the growth rate.
This sounds like a textbook case of Cassandra syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(metaphor)
@post @gerrymcgovern that is only true if the markets for data are perfect and in constant equilibrium, and environmental externalities of collection and retention fully internalised. Neither condition holds. That's even if you buy neoclassical econ, which I, for one don't.
@alberto_cottica @gerrymcgovern
I'm PostKeynesian and Modern Monetary Theory advocate. I am an engineer and for me the NeoClassical one is such nonsense that it wouldn't even be worth considering if it weren't the justification for crimes on a planetary scale, to be clear.
That said, I don't understand your "that is only true for" or I wasn't clear: that article is FUD because it doesn't make any sense to assume that a growth rate will remain the same for 30 or 200 years. It's not a matter of economics nor modeling: it's common sense.
@post aha, I see your point. What I meant: I guess by "benefits" you implied "EXPECTED benefits". That's an eye-of-the-beholder thing: @gerrymcgovern things data that you do not use are just waste, but I imagine that some data-hoarding companies out there collect because it's cheap and easy, AND THEY HOPE TO RESELL. "The new oil", remember? So, the cost-benefit calculation becomes about resell in a volatile data market, and you get speculation. And bubbles, which look irrational from outside.
@alberto_cottica @gerrymcgovern
Who cares, why are you talking about companies all on a suddenly? The article talks about physical limitations, about humanity, about 30 and 200 years in the future.
You think I'm talking about market economy, why? This is not the subject of the article. The article is not about companies.
I'm saying the most obvious thing in the world: the growth rate will not always be the same.
And the other well-known thing is that every time someone has tried to make these kinds of predictions they've been proven wrong by the change in technology.
The author realizes this because he mentions the number of atoms and 200 years in the future. He tries to say "it doesn't matter the technological innovations".
But who cares about a future given by a totally implausible hypothesis.
There is an exponential growth of data in this era: so what? Of all things it is the most innocent and this is the silliest scaremongering I have ever heard.
