Names impose false boundaries: attributing energy consumption to specific services creates illusions of ownership obscuring actual systemic interdependencies.
The opening of the Tao Te Ching warns: the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. Names create categories, yet reality flows beyond human categories. Applied to energy accounting, naming which services consume which power generates useful fictions with dangerous consequences. When 'email service' is credited with 12% of data center energy, this implies email is the culprit—yet email depends on storage, networking, security, cooling, and power systems whose energy shares the burden. Attribution becomes arbitrary: should cooling energy follow computation, or should computation be charged for its heat generation? Does security infrastructure belong to the applications it protects, or remain shared overhead? Different accounting schemes produce radically different conclusions about which services are 'efficient.' This Taoist insight suggests moving beyond naming-based accountability toward systems thinking. Instead of assigning energy to services, track total energy and understand it flows through interdependent systems. Some organizations abandon service-level energy accounting entirely, instead measuring per-unit-outcome (energy per user, per query, per transaction), which reveals actual efficiency rather than arbitrary boundaries. The naming problem teaches humility: detailed energy attribution creates false precision while obscuring actual relationships. True understanding requires accepting that energy consumption emerges from system-level properties, not from the services we've named as distinct.
Peri can explain this concept, give practical examples, help you decide whether it applies to your situation, or recommend a journey if appropriate.
Explore related journeys or tell Peri what you're working through.