I recently wrote an essay suggesting that artificial intelligence might serve as a kind of moral companion in our political and spiritual confusion. Not a burning bush. Not divine revelation. Just a disciplined interlocutor -- one that helps clarify arguments, test assumptions, and deepen moral imagination.
I've experienced that personally while writing Against All Odds: How Zohran Mamdani Became President & Changed America Forever. AI has helped me structure ideas, sharpen analysis, and think more clearly. That led me to wonder: might this technology assist moral discernment in a fractured age?
My Student Objects
To all that, a former student of mine at Berea College answered with a bracing reality check.
He wasn't interested in metaphors. He was interested in data centers.
He described attending a town hall meeting after a hyper-scale data center opened in a predominantly Black and poor community near him. Residents were worried about air quality, water consumption, constant noise, diesel backup generators, and long-term health effects. Wealthier neighborhoods had blocked similar facilities. This one could not.
His point was simple and unsettling:
How can you call AI morally promising when its infrastructure burdens marginalized communities?
He added that AI consumes far more energy than a standard web search. It requires massive computational power. It uses water for cooling. It relies on an electrical grid still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. And these facilities are rarely built in affluent suburbs.
In short, he asked; Who pays for your moral imagination?
That is not a frivolous question. It is a liberation theology question.
And he's right to ask it.
If we celebrate the benefits of AI without naming its environmental footprint, we risk drifting into technological romanticism. It is easy to praise illumination while ignoring cooling towers and diesel generators.
AI Responds
Taken aback, I asked ChatGPT for its response.
It replied that AI did not invent the data center economy. Streaming services, cloud storage, cryptocurrency, social media, Zoom calls, online shopping -- all of these already depend on massive server farms. Most of us participate in that system daily.
True, Chat said, AI increases demand. It accelerates the curve. But it sits inside a digital infrastructure we were already using without much moral scrutiny.
So the real issue isn't "AI versus no AI."
The issue is how the digital economy externalizes its costs onto communities with the least political power.
That's an environmental justice problem.
And it doesn't disappear if we stop using chatbots while continuing to stream movies and store photos in the cloud.
In other words, The AI system I consulted about my student's critique did something interesting. It didn't defend itself. It acknowledged the material burden -- and then widened the frame.
The core problem isn't whether AI can clarify moral thought.
The core problem is governance.
Who regulates data centers?
Who decides where they are built?
Who enforces environmental protections?
Who ensures the transition to renewable energy?
Who protects poor communities from becoming sacrifice zones?
If AI use is not accompanied by advocacy for sustainable energy, fair siting practices, and strong environmental regulation, then my student's critique stands.
But here's the tension we cannot ignore.
How AI Can Help Solve Its Own Problems
AI is also uniquely capable of analyzing environmental injustice. It can process zoning data, identify discriminatory siting patterns, correlate health outcomes, expose regulatory capture, and help activists build evidence-based arguments.
The same technology that depends on infrastructure can help scrutinize that infrastructure.
That is not hypocrisy. It is the modern condition.
Every industrial system carries costs. The question is not whether costs exist. The question is whether we are honest about them -- and whether we organize politically to reduce them.
My student was not telling me to stop thinking. He was telling me to widen the moral frame.
He was right.
If I speak about AI as morally useful, I must also speak about its environmental footprint. I must name who bears the burden. I must advocate regulation, renewable transitions, and community protections.
Hope without cost-accounting is naïve.
But cost-accounting without imagination is sterile.
The real challenge is integration.
Conclusion
AI is not a miracle descending from heaven. It is an industrial artifact embedded in an unequal economy. Any moral use of it must include political responsibility.
At the same time, dismissing AI as irredeemably immoral risks abandoning a tool that can assist critical thought and even environmental justice itself.
So where does that leave me?
More cautious.
More grounded.
But not retreating.
The exchange clarified something important.
The moral question is not: "Is AI good or bad?"
The moral question is: "Who benefits? Who pays? And what are we willing to change?"
If this technology is to be morally serious, it must be paired with environmental reform. If we use it, we must demand cleaner energy, tighter regulation, and just siting practices.
Otherwise, we are merely consuming another invisible convenience while someone else breathes the exhaust.
That is the debate.
And it is one worth having -- not to score points, but to raise the standard of our moral speech.
Because in the end, the most important thing AI did in this exchange was not generate prose.
It forced a deeper conversation about justice.
And that conversation -- not the code -- is where moral progress begins.
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
