What you're using AI for?
Questioner: Pranam Acharya Ji, today I'm here with a question that I heard from you only; it's regarding entrepreneurs. For the last 20 to 30 years, we are seeing that the technology has grown very much. The access to knowledge has grown very much. And in doing so, knowingly or unknowingly, we have distorted lots of things; like the environment, nature, and the state of humankind.
So, the contradiction comes that in one way we are saying that something is growing, and on the opposite we are losing things, we're destroying things. So, in one way we can say that it’s an opportunity to do things, and on the other way it seems a responsibility to start new things. So, can you please bring me to a common point, whether working means…?
You only have said that entrepreneurship is a sacred calling. So, whether it's a responsibility or an opportunity, Acharya Ji?
Acharya Prashant: The two are not different really. They are different only when you have the notion of the selfish kind of opportunity, and then you have to be told that even as you benefit from your opportunity, you must also remember your responsibility. It's almost like snacking in a restaurant, right? The menu card is the opportunity and the bill is the responsibility.
So, in those situations you are reminded: listen, with opportunity comes responsibility. With the food comes the bill. It's in those contexts that these two things are different and dangerously different, and therefore through social obligation or legal regulation you have to be reminded to keep these two together.
When it comes to matters of the heart, opportunity is responsibility, responsibility is opportunity. The two are not separate.
Questioner: So, if I talk about some AI tools or chat GPT; somewhere, I was reading that if I make one prompt, it takes some quantity of water, which it consumes to cool it. So, in one way it seems beneficial for humankind and on the other...
Acharya Prashant: No, it totally depends on what that prompt is about. It totally depends on what you're using AI for. You use AI to educate yourself about the climate, and then if AI takes energy to run on the net, still the deal is beneficial. Maybe by educating yourself using AI, you have consumed x units of energy, but the education would mean that you will now save 5x units of energy. So, on the whole it's a favorable deal.
On the other hand, if you are using anything for a nonsensical purpose, and even if you consume a small amount of energy, it should still be discouraged. You can still use a large sum of energy provided it is for a sustainable and consistent and right purpose. Then it's fine. Then that's fine.
I'm asking you, let's say we are having a seminar on climate change here in this very hall, right? And it's the month of April or May in Hyderabad, which is hot. Top climate scientists have assembled here and they are serious. They sincerely want to speak to each other to discover ways for meaningful action. Would you want them to sweat here or would you rather turn on the ACs?
Questioner: Definitely turn on the ACs.
Acharya Prashant: Now, if somebody comes and says, "Look at this, they're talking about climate change while enjoying the ACs." This is a foolish objection. Even if you turn on ten ACs, that is justifiable. At the same time, if you sit here needlessly chit-chatting and gossiping and you are using just one AC, even that one AC is not all right. Switch it off.
Questioner: Then Acharya Ji, what should be the point of operation that I would call it to be the means right and the wrong?
Acharya Prashnat: The center. You see, if I extend the climate example, it's not that you cannot emit any carbon. There is a natural cycle of emission and absorption, a natural cycle. So, you can emit and that is all right: 2.4 tons per capita annually. Fine.
The problem starts with the dislocation of the inner center. Now you'll start consuming heavily. America: 14 tons per person. Dubai: 22 tons per person. That kind of a situation, right? Plus, high fertility rates. So not only do you consume yourself but also produce more consumers, and those consumers in turn will produce even more consumers. So you say, "But I have only two kids." Those two will have two each. That would mean four, and that would mean eight. And you see how it would progress. So you didn't beget two, it's the entire progression that’s due to you.
And all that happens when you don't have a meaningful purpose in life. Then a lot of time is spent just ingratiating oneself with consumption. Otherwise, if one is fighting the right battles in life, then first of all spare time to consume gets reduced. Secondly, even if you consume, that is for the sake of that battle; like the AC is for the sake of the seminar, and that is fine. That's not consumption intended to ingratiate, that is consumption for the sake of the right effort, right mission, right purpose.
Lives bereft of purpose, they are the ones that consume the most. Consume endlessly, purposelessly. And that is what is not sustainable. Nothing to do in life. Right? Let's have one more baby. Or, "We have so much money, darling, what to do? Okay, let's have three more babies."
In the developed world, particularly the USA, the fertility rate among the rich coolly exceeds the fertility rate among the general population. The rich are having kids as entertainment. Nothing to do and so much money. So five kids, six kids, four is the norm. Ten, fourteen, just because we have money, so let's have kids. Toys, let's fetch new organic toys. No? That's stupidity. And that says that you have money but no purpose. So you are entertaining yourself with pregnancy.
Or you have money but with no purpose for that money. So you are buying new private jets, adding to your fleet needlessly, buying islands and building castles because there is money and nothing to do.
Money is not the problem. Purposelessness is the problem. And when you are purposeless, then one of the entertainments is to burn the money. And that's what climate change is.
Questioner: You talked about purposeness, Acharya Ji. So Acharya Ji, it can arise from two answers. One is, what generally it is said that what you are interested in; and what you say is that what is actually important, what has to be done. So Acharya Ji, what I found is that what has to be done is right.
There are n numbers of things that have to be done, that have to be rectified. So which one has to be chosen for an individual?
Acharya Prashant: You have the intellect to decide that. When you are packing for a journey, there are n things that you have to do, but don’t you prioritize? Don’t you form a sequence? You do. What else is the intellect for? You know what is more important. You also know which action is a prerequisite to the next one. So that's how you come up with a hierarchy or a sequence. You also know the relative importance of various actions.
Just as you have placed value in a number, a number of eight digits, you want to enhance the value. Which one would you act on? Which digit? The first digit. Right? That’s how you decide where to act. There are eight options, but I would rather act on the first one. And then some idiot can come and accuse you of not acting on the last one, and you can ignore the objection. He’ll say, look, the last digit is at zero and this fellow is not at all working to increase it. And the first digit was at five and he is still focusing on increasing it; when it was already at five, he still wants to add to it. And the last one is at zero and he's ignoring it. Surely he is either shrewd or stupid.
You can ignore it. You know the value of things. Zero in the last digit, even if you turn it to nine, means very little. But five in the first digit, even if you turn it to six, means the world. Right?
Questioner: Thank you, Acharya Ji.
Questioner: Sir, right now I'm following my own goals, which I made after listening to you in the past one year. But after this talk I'm feeling regret, a small regret, that actually I'm following my own goal but not separately working on climate change. So should I worry about it? Should I continue on my own goals?
Acharya Prashant: What you are, and that which is your own, is inseparable from the climate. So these are anyway not two different things. Look at what is implicit in your question. What you're saying is, I'm working on myself and that which is my own, and in the process I am forgetting the climate. No, the problem is not that you are forgetting the climate. The problem is that you are not looking at the bigger picture. You, your life, your goals; nothing is separable from the climate. We are all one. So in whatever you do, climate has to be remembered because it is a big, big part of it.
In whatever you do, if you want to design chips, you'll have to remember the climate. You want to raise a family, you'll have to remember the climate.
Questioner: If my goal is not going to damage the climate, is it all good?
Acharya Prashant: How do I know? First of all, I'll have to get into the calculations.
Questioner: If you want me to put it: my only goal is to be the world's greatest athlete.
Acharya Prashant: Depends on who the sponsor is.
Questioner: Yeah. No, we’ll keep things in mind.
Acharya Prashant: So that's what, there is so much that you have to keep in mind because everything is inseparable.
Questioner: If I'm not working for climate change separately?
Acharya Prashant: Sir, nobody needs to work for climate change separately. Please understand. Because climate is something that should have remained in equilibrium on its own, right. No animal is needed to work for climate change. Tell me why?
Because animals don’t destroy the climate either. Human beings are also not needed to work towards the climate, because just till around 100 years back we were not damaging the climate. So the climate anyway does not require our active intervention or support, right? It’s not as if we need to go out and heal the climate, the climate takes care of its own. We destroyed it. The change is anthropomorphic; we did it, and therefore we have to undo what we have done.
And who did it? This entire culture altogether, that includes athletes as well. Think of the various ways in which the sporting culture, the sports industry, is related to over-consumption. You have to look at everything. Once, before you become a brick in the wall, you have to understand what that entire structure is about.
So taking care of the climate does not mean that each single person has to become a climate activist. No, not really. You don’t need to regret that. Not everybody has to hold the mic and preach about climate action. You don’t need to do that. But you need to be very acutely conscious.
You might say, “I’m just an athlete, a swimmer, or a runner,” but if you look at the linkages, you will see how everything contributes to something else, and that’s where your resolve and wisdom, first of all before resolve, will be needed.
Questioner: Yeah.
