The thin line of ‘just don’t use AI’

By Herman M. Lagon

A few days ago, I wrote that every AI prompt carries an environmental cost. That remains true.

The answer appears almost instantly, making it easy to forget that it traveled through thousands of computers working behind the scenes. Those computers need electricity. They generate heat. And in many places, they rely on water to stay cool. None of that is imaginary.

That said, acknowledging those costs does not mean the technology itself should be abandoned.

That, however, is the direction some campaigns are taking. As concerns over AI’s growing demand for energy and water continue to rise, some advocates argue that the best solution is simply to avoid AI altogether. Others have delivered the message with a bit of sarcasm, suggesting we should start saving water—not for our communities, but for the machines. Behind the satire lies a serious concern: Is artificial intelligence becoming too expensive for the planet?

It is a fair question.

It is not, however, the right conclusion.

Some debates sound convincing simply because they give us only two choices. Either support AI or protect the environment. But that is a false choice, and life is usually more complicated than that. We should be aiming for innovation that respects the planet, not innovation at its expense.

After all, AI is not the only technology that consumes resources. Every book starts with paper. Every hospital depends on electricity. Every smartphone contains minerals that came from the earth. Even sending an email or watching a movie online requires servers quietly running somewhere, all day and all night.

We have never answered those challenges by walking away from the technology. We have answered them by making the technology better. We respond by making them better.

The same principle should apply to AI.

The goal is not less intelligence.

The goal is more responsible intelligence.

That means writing thoughtful prompts instead of asking AI to regenerate the same answer repeatedly. It means using AI for meaningful work rather than endless novelty. It means choosing verification over blind acceptance. It means supporting companies investing in renewable-powered data centers, recycled cooling water, and more efficient computing technologies. Every AI prompt uses resources. We already know that. The better question is whether we are using those resources for something worthwhile.

What often gets left out is that AI is also helping solve many environmental problems.

Today, AI helps predict floods, improve renewable energy, detect illegal logging, conserve water in agriculture, reduce food waste, and speed up climate research. It is also helping cities make smarter decisions that reduce traffic and emissions. Beyond these big-picture gains, AI can also make everyday work more human. Students can focus more on learning than formatting. Guidance counselors can spend more time with people than on pubmat layouts. Teachers can invest more energy in teaching than routine preparation. And public affairs practitioners can devote more attention to listening, writing, and engaging communities instead of repetitive production tasks.

So the story is not simply that AI consumes resources. It is also helping us protect them.

That balance deserves more attention.

The environmental movement has always encouraged us to make technology work for both people and the planet. That principle remains sound. But environmental responsibility has never myopically or naively meant rejecting innovation altogether. It has meant demanding that innovation become cleaner, wiser, and more accountable.

Education offers perhaps the best example.

Banning AI may be the simpler decision. Teaching students how to use it responsibly is the more difficult one. I would rather prepare young people for the world they are entering than pretend that world does not exist. AI is here to stay. Our responsibility is to help students develop the wisdom to use it well.

Perhaps digital literacy should now include environmental responsibility, too.

Students need to know that AI is not magic. Every response depends on real machines using real electricity and, often, real water. Learning to use AI responsibly means thinking before prompting—not only for academic honesty, but also out of respect for the resources behind the technology.

Ironically, insisting that every poster, layout, or routine visual must be created manually does not necessarily make the work more original. Most of us already begin with templates, stock elements, or existing designs. AI simply shortens the routine part of the process. The real opportunity is what we do with the time we save. If that time allows a teacher to mentor another student or a guidance counselor to listen to someone who needs help, the technology has served a deeply human purpose.

Technology has never made moral choices. It can build a home or break a window. AI can help someone learn or simply help someone avoid learning. The difference has never been the tool. It has always been the person using it. Electricity can power a hospital or illuminate an empty room all night. Artificial intelligence is no different. It is neither inherently sustainable nor inherently destructive. It becomes one or the other through human choices.

That is where the conversation belongs.

Not in asking whether AI should disappear or in using less capable tools simply to feel more environmentally responsible. Not in following the latest wave of opinion, but in asking whether we understand the science, values, logic, and evidence behind the position we choose to take—and whether we are wise enough to deserve the technology we use.

Because environmental responsibility has never been about thinking less. Nor has it been about following the loudest voices.

It has always been about thinking better.

And perhaps that is precisely what responsible artificial intelligence should help us do.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ‘student of and for life’ who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world that is grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views herewith do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.