The dark green leaves liberate themselves from the grasp of the resonant tree, twisting, turning, and breathing a dance of freedom as they gently float to the ground. In my hypnotic state, I breathe in the mossy air and feel warmth spread from the top of my head to the tips of my toes. Then, the bell begins to sing and I’m soon out of breath, running up the hill to get to Old Science Hall.
I chose to transfer to Swarthmore College for many reasons; a primary one being the institution’s commitment to environmentalism, embodied by its To Zero By Thirty-Five (20X35) energy plan. With the planet set to warm past the crucial 1.5°C threshold, peaking at 1.8°C in the best-case scenario, I knew then as I do now that no institution can claim to care about my future while feeding into the climate crisis.
Living on campus, I know that this commitment goes beyond the website. Bamboo cutlery, reusable containers at the campus cafes, and compost bins in every building are a few examples of Swarthmore’s follow-through. Not only do these sustainable practices make me proud to be a Swattie, but they also help me feel more at peace with my actions in a burning world that terrifies me. However, the climate crisis is not the only transformative event Swarthmore is grappling with. With the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Swarthmore’s commitment to sustainability is being tested.
The emergence of AI has placed Swarthmore in a complicated position. On one hand, AI is re-shaping the job market, with employers increasingly looking for workers who know how to use and integrate AI in manners that, allegedly, raise their efficiency. Better prospects in the job market are a significant reason many students chose to pursue higher education, which makes employability a natural concern for the college. Therefore, it would be understandable for Swarthmore to want to implement AI to help students stay ahead of the curve. On the other hand, not only does AI have negative effects on cognitive function and interpersonal skills, it has an abysmal impact on the planet that is in direct conflict with Swarthmore’s carbon-neutral goals.
According to the United Nations, by 2030, “data centres could consume 945 terawatt-hours of electricity annually,” which is almost four times that of the entire state of Pennsylvania, the third highest producer of electricity in the country. Moreover, “AI-related water consumption could equal the basic annual domestic needs of 1.3 billion people by the end of the decade, while its land footprint may exceed 14,500 square kilometres,” which is slightly more square kilometres than the entirety of Connecticut.
The communities carrying the true burden of AI are mainly those which already face discrimination. In fact, they are in our backyards. A data center might soon be built in the Trainer/Lower Chichester area, near Chester City, which is a 20 minute drive away from campus. Chester is a predominantly Black city with a 30% poverty rate. It also houses the largest trash incinerator in the United States. In response to the environmental racism this community has been facing for three decades, Swarthmore students formed C4 to work in partnership with existing community efforts. Though C4’s work has helped make advances, members of the Chester community continue to struggle with air pollution that increases rates of asthma, cancer and other diseases. The social justice and environmental issues of AI are not vague or oceans away — they are here and they are our responsibility.
At present, Swarthmore’s ITS Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) place usage responsibility on community users, giving suggestions rather than rules that fail to address any environmental concerns. Still, Swarthmore provides AI tools ranging from Google Gemini to Firefly, which might reflect Swarthmore’s concern for free versions of AI mining students’ data, fear of falling behind, or in support of the use of this technology. Swarthmore has left it up to the discretion of individual professors and departments to determine their own AI policy inside the classroom, and I have yet to hear of any syllabus that allows for its unrestricted use. I think it’s good for professors to have a significant role in shaping AI policy; their wisdom as educators, academics, and individuals with a deep curiosity about the world makes them great minds for the complicated AI question. Still, as exciting or terrifying as this technological advance may be, it comes at an environmental price we cannot afford to pay — a price which is directly at odds with Swarthmore College’s professed values.
Swarthmore College’s staunch commitment to environmentalism and sustainability is incompatible, morally and physically, with the use of AI. Despite its perceived, or maybe even tangible, benefits, the use of AI is inconsistent with Swarthmore’s goals and ultimately more detrimental than beneficial. It subsidizes the climate crisis while wounding our minds and education. I have hope that as technology advances and the climate crisis deepens, the world will prioritize sustainable innovations that Swarthmore can proudly accept, implement, and even help shape. For now, the college might have to choose between AI and its commitments to building a better world. Which will it be?
