Recent blog posts

Recent 

The birth of AI has brought a new wave of data center construction from major tech companies like Google and Meta, with many others building or planning thousands across the United States. Even some states like Utah, where billionaire Kevin O’Leary’s proposed 41,200-acre “Project Stratos” data center is set to take place, have offered large tax exemptions and incentive packages to new data center construction. To put into perspective, that’ll likely total to be over $1 billion subsidizing a data center 137% the size of Manhattan.When you look across the nation at where new data centers are being built, a familiar pattern begins to emerge. Big tech companies and industry groups lobby state governments for favorable tax incentives before projects move into small, rural communities, where local officials, eager for new economic activity and tax revenue, are the only ones given the authority to vote down a project. However, all of that economic activity is frontloaded. Once construction is complete, even the largest data centers require very few jobs day to day. Not to mention that in most of these towns, tech companies are not even hiring local labor for construction and are instead pulling from other states and large firms.Once completed, they have huge downsides. First, they’re huge resource consumers. Land, water, energy—you name it. These corporations have been buying up farmland and plots adjacent to residential subdivisions to throw up their buildings, which are already bigger than warehouses, to store their servers. Their servers run 24 hours a day and require constant electricity and water to keep from overheating. It’s not a small amount of water or electricity either. These servers handle astounding amounts of data that need the lion’s share of these utilities. Residents living near data centers have found their homes’ water pressure to be very weak, if running at all. What water remains is full of sediments not safe for cooking or drinking. Electricity bills have also skyrocketed as the data centers hog much of the existing grid. In fact, data centers are so big, many have personal generators for additional power consumption.Being in such close proximity to data centers presents serious health risks. The generators these data centers possess burn fossil fuels that worsen local air quality with carbon emissions that negatively affect respiratory health. The centers themselves are huge sources of noise pollution. Videos from communities all across the country have gone viral documenting a distinct, noticeable hum that runs 24/7. Such noise pollution mentally disrupts humans and animals alike. Clayton Tucker, a cattle rancher in Texas who lives close to a data center, recently shared that none of his cows have birthed healthy calves since the center opened.Besides these obvious downsides, big tech corporations seem to disregard opposition when it comes to expanding their services. Many videos of local town hall meetings have circulated on the internet showing that residents are overwhelmingly against the construction of data centers, but their city councils almost always unanimously approve construction. Unfortunately, most small towns have been unable to halt construction after voting out their council members and replacing them with individuals who oppose construction. The Nashville Zoo has even pleaded with residents to protest a planned data center that would open adjacent to the habitats of endangered species on the basis that it would disrupt breeding programs and the animals’ mental health.What’s even scarier is that the Trump administration has taken measures to label opposition to data centers and criticism of AI as “anti-tech extremism.” In Claremore, Oklahoma, farmer Darren Blanchard was arrested and jailed for speaking 5 seconds over his allotted time in a city council meeting while protesting a proposed 300-acre data center in his community, despite other people in the meeting speaking out in favor of the project and being allowed to go 30–40 seconds overtime. The feds have also begun monitoring posts and users with negative perceptions of AI and have vowed surveillance. It’s also no help that thousands of Flock cameras are now being installed across the country to monitor citizens on the basis of “public safety.” Just like data centers, communities are being asked to accept the physical and social costs of Flock cameras against their own will. It seems more and more that the United States is imitating the Chinese model of mass surveilling its own citizens and handing out repercussions for political dissent.That makes sense why the most common rationale for expansion by American leaders and politicians has been under the guise of surpassing China in the development of AI; however, the United States is already ahead of China by more than 3,000 operating data centers. Even if that weren’t the case, the current way in which they are built and operate is completely unsustainable and needs to change. This truly is a global problem that we will face in the upcoming century, and hopefully we can come together as a society with a better solution for the future of our world.—Esen Yildirim CITATIONS:“THE REAL SAFETY RISKS OF DATA CENTERS: WHAT LOCAL COMMUNITIES NEED TO KNOW.”https://conimby.org/blog/2025/09/12/the-real-safety-risks-of-data-centers-what-local-communities-need-to-know/“AI data centers’ “infrasound” pollution linked to nausea, insomnia in nearby residents”https://epawatch.org/2026-05-29-data-centers-infrasound-pollution-linked-to-nausea-insomnia.html‘Anti-tech extremism’: The government is monitoring AI criticism nationwide, says report

The Unsustainability of the AI Boom

The United States of America spends more on medical research than any other existing nation on Earth. Our scientific institutions sit atop the global hierarchy of research, receive billions in taxpayer funding, and generate an endless stream of publications. Yet, America remains one of the sickest populations in the developed world across a multitude of measures, including chronic disease, life expectancy, and mental illness. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">The first thing I’d point to are the many treatments and guidelines that over the past century have been overturned. Hormone replacement therapy was promoted for decades as a way to prevent chronic disease until the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002 found that it did not prevent heart disease and actually raised the risk of stroke, blood clots, and breast cancer. The damage was not abstract. In the WHI, combined hormone therapy was linked to about 8 extra cases of invasive breast cancer per 10,000 person-years, about 8 extra strokes per 10,000 person-years, and about 18 extra blood clots per 10,000 person-years.Knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis-related meniscal tears is another example: it was used for years before better evidence showed that physical therapy worked just as well for many patients. Even many recent interventions, like wearable fitness trackers for weight loss, have &nbsp;failed to deliver the benefits earlier promised. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">So, I would think it’s fair to ask why these failures continue to occur despite the resources and prestige of America’s “world-class” research institutions. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;"> In a 2012 University of Virginia white paper, psychologists Brian Nosek, Jeffrey Spies, and Matt Motyl argued that scientific institutions increasingly reward novel findings over replication and verification. It started with a study led by Motyl and Nosek investigating embodiment of political extremism. They gave participants from across the political spectrum (left, right, center) and had them complete a perceptual task in which words were presented through different shades of gray. Participants had to click along a gradient representing grays from near black to near white to select a shade that matched the shade of the word. Their results showed that those who identified as “political moderates” were better at correctly perceiving the shades of gray. Before they were going to publish it, they decided to replicate their experiment because they “could not justify skipping replication on the grounds of feasibility or resource constraints.” In their replication, after testing 1,300 additional participants with enough statistical power to detect the original effect, the result completely disappeared. For Motyl, this was especially devastating and hurt his career advancement as he was about to enter the workforce.<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Nosek used this as an example of a broader issue, arguing that “the incentives for publishable results can be at odds with the incentives for accurate results.” This has even more truth to it 14 years later, where the number of PhDs produced by American universities has grown to record numbers, exceeding 58,000 in 2024. At the same time, the path to traditional academic careers has narrowed, with a growing share of researchers cycling through postdoctoral and non-tenure-track positions. That means that for a grad student or even a junior professor, finding something new or surprising is more valuable for them professionally than publishing a well-run replication study. This is because universities rely on publication records as an indicator for success in order to get funding, which has led to measurable outputs like citation counts, impact factors, and H-index scores becoming increasingly more important in modern academia. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">So, in 2026, even with open data practices and replication projects being more commonplace today as a result of the “great replication crisis” of the 2010s, the competitive pressures that created it in the first place still exist and are, in some cases, even stronger today than they were 14 years ago. A good way to put it is that we are more self-aware than self-correcting, since universities are still hiring, promoting, and rewarding researchers on the same basis of publications, citations, and academic visibility. These are the same universities in the U.S. and across the world which occupy the central position in the production of scientific knowledge itself. Until they put more value on verification, implementation, and patient results, America will continue to lead the world in scientific output without seeing any meaningful kind of progress in public health here at home.-Alex Adamson<strong style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">Link to Nosek/Motyl Case <span data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">&nbsp;<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612459058" data-mce-href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612459058">https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612459058</a>&nbsp;

The Theoretical Capture of Modern Science

In recent years, there has been a so-called “Third Great Awakening” in Generation Z, characterized by ever-increasing numbers in church attendance and a drop in alcohol sales that has cost major producers in the industry upwards of $830 billion in market value. According to the Barna Group, the average Zoomer attends church 1.9 times a month, as opposed to the average Boomer’s 1.4 times (Barna State of the Church, 2026). These are all positive things for young people; however, only time will tell if this remains into the foreseeable future or becomes just another trend of the 2020s. Recent events, such as the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the escalation of major geopolitical conflicts around the world, have left Generation Z with a lot of uncertainty and questions. Whether these are about the economy, government, or society, Gen Z has begun to look for new role models and leaders to follow. This is where church comes in. An important aspect of its attractiveness is church events being scheduled, organized, and smoothly run by mature deacons and pastors who make easy role models for Generation Z.Throughout history, there have been many significant challenges to church doctrine and resulting schisms, from the Great Schism of 1054, through to the Protestant Reformation and, as of late, though it may not be a schism, the American megachurch movement. Megachurches and American consumerism tend to walk hand in hand with each other, appealing to the masses by offering watered-down versions of the prosperity gospel that are appealing to new believers. A lot of churches describe themselves as being “seeker sensitive,” meaning they focus on welcoming in brand-new believers, or “baby Christians,” and attempt to water down their theology, worship, and view of the sacraments to fit a worldview that is more appealing to Americans. While these churches are doing good insofar as they bring a lot of people to the Christian faith, issues arise whenever sermons become more akin to TED Talks or motivational speeches, relying less and less on Scripture and more and more on personal anecdote and statements that are meant to invoke feelings from the audience. The megachurch experience is based on how one feels after they leave; therefore, the worship, doctrine, and preaching, while still mainly being Trinitarian and affirming basic Christian beliefs, leave the seasoned believer wanting more out of church.The demographic that has most felt the effects of this is younger Generation Z men. I, as well as many of my friends, have begun inquiring into more traditional churches, specifically high church Protestantism. Young men have required structure, masculine role models, and repetition since their creation, and the traditional church offers this much more succinctly than differing evangelical churches. While many young adults will still hold a very ecumenical view on the church, the more radical among us will become “Orthobros (Eastern Orthodox)” or “Tradcaths (Traditional Roman Catholics),” who profess anyone not catechized within their rite to be anathema and heretical. A good amount of young men inquire into Reformed theology, especially the doctrines and confessions on predestination, baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and corporate worship, because of the way they are wired. Whenever church becomes more structured, less centered on feelings or experience, and more centered on sacrificial worship and the giving of yourself to the Lord, one finds it easier to stick around that church week to week and catechize within it. A deep sense of community is fostered within these churches, and the steadfast love of Christ has the spotlight. Theologically rich hymns are sung by entire congregations, Communion is received with great importance, and baptism is administered in a very reverent way. This, of course, is very appealing for a young man who has a lot of passion for Christ and is not seeing it realized in larger evangelical churches.However, we must remember that the evangelical movement has been one of the most important aspects of Christianity in the United States and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. While strong believers should continue to call out dangerous beliefs in large churches, we should all be extremely gracious and accepting to new Christians, and realize that not everybody will be inclined to walk in their faith the exact same way and may be content worshiping Christ without having the same thirst for theological knowledge. As I continue to hope and pray that I will see church attendance numbers constantly on the rise, I also pray for the ability to stand firm in my faith while simultaneously being kindhearted and humble, and urge all believers to do the same.– Jonas Lawrence

Archive Journal

Recent

The Unsustainability of the AI Boom

The Theoretical Capture of Modern Science

The Gen Z Push Towards High-Church Christianity