≪今回のworkshop≫
参加人数：16名（うち新人の方：3名）
（詳しいディスカッションの様子はInstagramへ）
≪FIRST HALF≫
Discussion exercise with a game element
For the First Half activity, we will have a discussion exercise with a game element.
On the day, each team will work together to guess rankings based on publicly available survey results.
The actual topics will be announced on the day, but beforehand I would like to share the rules, purpose, and some useful phrases.
1. Rules
During the activity, each team will discuss and predict the top items in a ranking related to a certain theme.
What is important is not only which rank you think each item has, but also why you think so.
- – Round 1: Predict the Top 3 from the given options
- – Round 2: Predict the Top 3 from the given options
- – Round 3: Predict the Top 5 from the given options
Scoring
- – 2 points = the item and its exact rank are correct
- – 1 point = the item is in the top ranking, but the rank is different
- – 0 points = the item is not in the top ranking
The team with the highest total score will be the winner.
2. Purpose of This Activity
More than simply getting the correct answer, I would like you to focus on developing the following skills through this activity:
- – Thinking about a topic from multiple perspectives
- – Expressing your opinion together with your reason
- – Discussing ideas without rejecting other people’s opinions
- – Presenting your ideas briefly and clearly
- – Thinking in a logical and structured way
I hope you will use this activity as a chance to practice these skills.
3. What I Would Like You to Keep in Mind on the Day
Please try to:
- – State your own opinion
- – Explain the reason behind it
- – Respond to other people’s opinions
- – Handle different opinions without rejecting them
- – Reach a conclusion as a team in the end
Please do not worry about being perfect.
What matters most is how you think, how you explain your ideas, and how you work together as a team.
≪LATTER HALF≫
Not in My Backyard: The Data Center Boom and Unwilling Neighbors
Data centers have become an essential infrastructure in the current society. Across the United States, tech giants are spending an extraordinary amount of money to construct data centers. The expected CAPEX by “hyperscalers”— Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta— is $700 billion in 2026.
For the towns where these facilities land, the promise is investment and jobs. The reality, many residents argue, is something else: a hyperscale campus consumes enormous amounts of electricity and water, runs cooling systems that generate noise 24/7, and creates few permanent jobs once construction ends. Studies have also linked the surge in demand to higher electricity bills for ordinary households. The result is a wave of grassroots opposition, leading over 50 towns to pass temporary bans on new construction.
San Marcos, Texas, is one example. When a developer proposed a $1.5 billion data center, residents pushed back, worried it would strain a grid already prone to blackouts while the benefits flowed elsewhere. The city council moved to pause the project.
Here lies a deeper tension. Almost everyone benefits from the digital services these data centers make possible. Few of us want one built next door.
This is what’s known as “NIMBY”—not in my backyard.
This session invites us to sit with that contradiction—not only for data centers, but as a recurring pattern in how societies make hard decisions.
<Questions>
Q1. Imagine a hyperscale data center is planned for the empty lot right next to your home. It promises local tax revenue but admits there will be constant low-level noise and possibly higher electricity bills. What is your honest reaction, and what would you want to know before deciding to support or oppose it?
Q2. Many people believe AI infrastructure is necessary for society’s future, yet do not want to personally bear the costs—the noise, the higher bills, the changed landscape. Is this attitude simply selfish, or a reasonable way to protect one’s own community? Where would you draw the line?
Q3. This “necessary for society, but not near me” thinking appears elsewhere too. In Japan, some accept that restarting nuclear power plants may be needed to secure electricity, yet would not want one in their own region. Can you think of other examples? How should a society fairly decide who bears these burdens?
Q4. If you were a local mayor facing a data center proposal that would bring money but anger residents, how would you decide? Please be prepared to share your group’s opinion at the end of the workshop.