High Technology ?
This is of course an opinion piece –
I have no idea what the debates are in your country – in France, the debate on 5G is invariably: it’s bad.
It is a debate with only one authorized opinion.
Most of the time it comes down to this argument – which is a pure argument of authority and cannot move me an inch.
I read a more constructed article today, totally against 5G – of course.
I may, for those who will realize Altair, disregard this popular objection to 5G deployment.
I could dismiss it out of hand: Altair would work best with 5G – but it also works with 4G – this does not jeopardize anything. At least, it is not this anti-fight that can put the planned technical development of Altair at risk.
I think it’s important to stop there, though.
Indeed – unless you are a high-tech fighter – producing a discourse that takes these objections into account helps to get Altair out of the scapegoat trap, designated by the other side as: to be shot down.
Do you think I’m dreaming? That’s exactly what’s happening to virtual reality helmets right now.
Anyway – and this amuses me – I’m going to go today to look at what all these supporters of: no to 5G
Their first argument is about our health: 5G can be bad for our health, by occupying a frequency for which we don’t have enough information.
At first sight, the “let’s be careful” side seems very valid.
Come on, I accept it.
So let’s be careful.
Their second argument is about Carbon emissions – you know, global warming? – here we are with scary numbers and, children, the planet is going to get hotter.
They say 5G is an energy-intensive technology, predatory on human and natural resources.
So there will be women and children working in the mines and paying a pittance.
The third argument is against Capital (old Karl is not dead at all): for money, to increase Capital, the evil capitalists are ready to extinguish the planet. It doesn’t matter for them, they will go to Mars with Elon Musk.
The last argument is de facto: the people who wrote this article are all scientists and the list is proposed after the article. What can you say against that, baby ?
This brings us full circle and reveals the truth.
They propose the solution: the boycott of everything that is closely or remotely related to the evolution of virtual technologies.
So, even so, the murder of the planet, that is enough to make you wonder.
I consulted the list of signatories of this boycott: it is eclectic – there are scientists concerned by the problem – the others are not, but they are professors, intellectuals.
But there is one thing I am sure of: it is that this forum will achieve nothing at all – except to feed a diffuse fear.
So, if I were to intervene in the debate – and if Altair exists, I will have to intervene in the debate – I will not oppose this forum or these ideas in the least.
As I am a nice person, I will avoid the too easy and I will not make any personal attack on the people who wrote all this: they express, after all, fears that are legitimate.
-you will notice that I am depriving myself of my best weapon of argument.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter: this immoral capitalism that would kill the planet to sell you a stuffed dog, yes but connected, to put in the back of your car. Capitalism is immoral? The answer is yes, of course. Capitalism is stupid? wow, I’m not playing. They will go to Mars with Elon Musk? do you believe in that?
Oh no, wait – maybe they are so blinded by the lure of profit that they kill their own planet without realizing it.
So the criticism is about the absolute blindness of the big global capitalists, who are at work to deploy 5G.
This is not very serious anymore – and this is a nice direct attack on people, without knowing them.
It’s a pity, because this makes the famous planet-killing capitalism trick work less well.
That some guys make money selling surgical masks, windmills, “green” brands, yes, we’ve all seen that. That these guys are not at all concerned with ecology and green is a serious probability. Which indicates what? That if you have to make money by selling green, nature, ecology, it will be done – it is done. And if it’s not natural or ecological: too bad.
All this to say that the argument “secret society of the evil capitalists who are killing us” – which comes directly from the development of this so-called communist party – is so global that it is clearly not serious. Give me some names. Give me some facts – show me the real foolishness of these high-tech capitalists, and then the argument can be valid.
And since a little cruelty doesn’t hurt in this combat sport, I expect all the people screaming about evil capitalists exploiting good kids and their good moms to really stop buying so many clothes, so many shoes, so many home decorations, so many air conditioners – if we’re talking about ecology, let’s go for it, so many swimming pools, so much of everything in fact.
Otherwise, forget the poor kids poor moms argument, which failed to reach you when you were buying the summer wardrobe, then the fall wardrobe, then this winter’s wardrobe but what to wear this spring?
I don’t mind people trying to make me feel guilty, but then you have to be really serious about it.
Unfortunately, it’s not very serious.
So much for that argument, it wasn’t great.
It’s more serious, ma’am, and you know it very well.
So what does the girl say?
She forgets, because she’s nice, that the people who talk to her have air-conditioning at home, that they have computers connected to the Internet, that they normally have all their files on the Cloud, and that they send you emails with “save nature, don’t print” footers. She forgets, because she could get nasty.
If I’m not mistaken, what is over-consuming energy, with digital technologies, is not the digital technologies, it’s the completely stupid and so-called ecological use we make of them.
In order not to print a paper, we keep it in a very real and very electric and very constant form in these centers that keep the data of the whole world, from one’s dog to the last cheated photo to look good on the networks. When you die, this data remains and continues to consume tons of energy to be kept. But the Earth ? – The what ? too bad.
As I forget this, I merely note that a tool has no moral significance. What we do with it does.
It is not 5G that is bad or good.
It is its use.
If we use 5G as stupidly as we use 4, and inflict data centers to keep our dog in 3D… yes it will be bad.
That’s what most people will do, by the way.
On the other hand, the industry – the people who make money and would rather make money than lose money – will be able to use this tool to lose less money, especially from an energy standpoint. When 5G, which is faster – much faster – allows us to really optimize our energy consumption, then 5G is very useful to fight against that.
In the place of those people who fight against 5G, I would rather mount a fight against the mind-boggling and totally stupid use of private and useless clouds and digital data.
Because in fact, they are not fighting against a tool – they are fighting against a use.
The tool – in this case 5G – is just a symbol.
But because they did not want to identify the real problem with digital technologies, the Earth is not saved.
It’s curious, yet aren’t these people capitalists blinded by the profit motive?
What do I have left of their arguments?
Ahhhhh, big topic, health.
Bad topic for a year – can you believe it? Killed by Covid and then by 5G?
So, without any bad humor, the Earth will be saved – that’s for sure.
There is no such thing as a ‘health‘ argument – it’s just a ‘let’s be careful when we don’t know‘ argument. An argument splendidly forgotten this year, with the fabulous multiplication of new medical treatments that are too, too, great.
Caution is not a bad argument – it’s probably the only good argument.
But it is not a life argument.
Without exaggerating too much, it is the argument of death: calm – silence – static.
It’s not safe to get into a car. Getting on a train. On a plane. It is unwise to walk alone at night in certain neighborhoods. It is unwise to eat too much – or not enough. It’s downright reckless to live. It hurts. It makes you cry. It makes you angry. It’s stressful. But yet, everyone – almost everyone – likes to live. And goes through life wondering why they do it – but they do it again and again.
Without getting too philosophical about it, the reason the cautionary argument never works is that it has everything in life against it, which is a reckless thing.
So there have been guys who have gone up in wooden crates and fabrics pompously called airplanes – and in the end, everybody goes up in them, because it’s dangerous but not so much anymore.
I don’t know if 5G is dangerous to health.
I know that it will exist – that it will be used – that we will see the health hazards afterwards, that these hazards will be corrected.
It’s going to exist because it opens up new opportunities for life.
But then, what do I have left of this great platform against 5G?
They’ve got the wrong target – so if I wanted to fight this war against 5G, I’d suggest they go after their target: their target is falsely ecological individual behavior. Is keeping everything digital such a good idea when you want to save the planet?
And I will take the opportunity to make comparative studies on energy consumption by connected/non-connected buildings.
You know why they don’t do it? why they have the wrong target, in my opinion voluntarily (they are intellectuals, people who normally have a functioning brain)?
Because they all participated in the great myth: save the trees, let’s put everything in digital form.
They didn’t save the trees.
And they participate largely in the absolute explosion of energy consumption.
It’s a magician’s trick. The 5G that doesn’t exist yet will become responsible for the evil created before it.
Otherwise they can do like Germany, and rebuild coal-fired power stations. That’s good, it’s not polluting. Well, it is, but it’s not the same pollution, damn it, lady.