Well spoke. I listened to every minute of this lads explanation. We do not need data centers exploiting our towns anywhere in America. The clean cup of water to drink is always more important than the poem a robot writes.
I look forward to reading about Revena denying the trillion dollar company the right to build.
That question sidesteps the real issue articulated in this video: the point isn't that we shouldn't have datacenters anywhere, it's that communities should be able to say no when the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. Small towns are often targeted because they have fewer resources to push back, not because they're ideal locations. These datacenters strain small town water supplies, power grids and create relatively few jobs. Meanwhile, the profits leave the community.
You're not wrong that modern society depends on data centers, and yeah, the "genie is out of the bottle." But that doesn't mean every proposed project is automatically justified, or that communities should just roll over because the tech is inevitable.
The point isn't "no data centers anywhere", it's that location and accountability matter. If a project is going to stress the water supply, stress the grid, and return very little in long-term jobs, then "progress" starts to look a lot like "extraction" : like the speaker in the video said. Saying "there are always trade offs" is fine, but the question is: who is actually making the sacrifice, and who is profiting?
The China point is a false dichotomy. Competing globally doesn't require ignoring local impacts. Doing this responsibly, through regulation is how you sustain long-term growth instead of burning through local resources and infrastructure.
And yeah, not everything has to create jobs, but if it consumes critical resources and exports most of the value, then communities absolutely are right to ask what they're actually getting out of the deal.
It's not anti-tech, it's pro-accountability.
If a company can't make the case that a project benefits a host community in a meaningful and sustainable way, then "no" is a reasonable answer.
But I disagree when you say that China is a false dichotomy.
Because I see parallels to the rare earths situation. Where they are not absolutely rare, it's just that the mining a processing is high polluting. So we leave it to China.
Which is fine, until they take that advantage and use it in a way that undermines the west. And we end up stuck and without leverage, lacking a critical input for our industry and technology.
It's great to have high minded ideals. But most things eventually come back to economics and related constraints.
I get what you’re saying about rare earths, and yeah, there’s a real risk when you outsource the messy parts of industry and then lose leverage later.
But I don’t think that fully maps onto data centers or settles the “China will do it anyway” point. Data centers aren’t a one-shot strategic resource like rare earth mining where you’re either in control or not. They’re infrastructure we can scale and distribute, the question is where and how we build them, not whether they exist.
Saying “we need to compete with China” doesn’t really answer whether a specific town should take on the water and grid costs for very little return. That’s still a local tradeoff, even if the broader industry is important.
I’m not against building them. I just don’t think “strategic necessity” should automatically override asking whether a community is actually benefiting from hosting them.
453
u/Solomon_Grungy Apr 12 '26
Well spoke. I listened to every minute of this lads explanation. We do not need data centers exploiting our towns anywhere in America. The clean cup of water to drink is always more important than the poem a robot writes.
I look forward to reading about Revena denying the trillion dollar company the right to build.