Change isn’t easy. And the pace of technological change seems to be accelerating every day.
But technological disruption didn’t start with computers, the internet, or artificial intelligence. It’s been happening for centuries. The Industrial Revolution, beginning in the late 1700s, fundamentally changed how people worked, lived, and built their communities.
And people weren’t always happy about it.
In fact, the battle between humans and machines isn’t some futuristic conflict involving Skynet and the Terminator. It actually played out more than 200 years ago during a little-known chapter of history called the Luddite Rebellion.
In the early 1800s, English textile workers fought against the introduction of machinery that threatened their livelihoods. They protested, organized, and even destroyed machines.
They won a few battles. Fortunately, the machines weren’t particularly Terminator-like.
But ultimately, they lost the war.
Not because the machines were stronger, but because the real opponent wasn’t technology. It was economics.
And economics is a difficult force to stop.
History Has a Way of Repeating Itself
I’ve been reading a lot about the proposed development of data centers across North Dakota. And there are plenty of people who are concerned.
I understand that. In fact, I think asking questions about major infrastructure projects is not only reasonable, it’s necessary.
How much water will they use? What happens to electricity rates? What about noise? What infrastructure will be required? Who pays for it? What are the long-term benefits to the community?
These are all legitimate questions.
But here’s the important part: We need to be willing to listen to the answers, too.
Too often, I see concerns repeated long after information has been provided that addresses them. Water usage is a good example. Not all data centers use the same cooling technology, and some designs can dramatically reduce water consumption. Rather than assuming every project will consume enormous amounts of water, we should be asking what technology a specific project will use and what its actual impact will be.
The same applies to electricity, infrastructure, and other concerns.
That doesn’t mean every answer will be satisfactory, or every project should be approved. It means we should evaluate projects based on facts, not assumptions.
And we’ve been through this before.
Imagine Fargo Without the Railroad
Think about the railroad expansion of the 1800s.
Railroads transformed America, connecting communities, moving agricultural products to market, and creating economic opportunities that had never existed before.
But not everyone welcomed them.
Historical opposition to railroad expansion included concerns about sparks causing fires, excessive noise, accidents, damage to farmland, and threats to livestock and people. Farmers and communities pushed for restrictions and protections, while critics challenged the influence railroad companies held over local economies and government.
Some of those concerns were absolutely legitimate. Railroads brought real risks, and the companies building them didn’t always treat communities fairly.
But imagine what Fargo, or North Dakota as a whole, would look like today without railroad development.
Our region’s agricultural economy, population growth, and connection to national markets were shaped by those tracks.
The railroad wasn’t simply a new way to move people and products. It was economic infrastructure that helped determine which communities would grow and prosper.
Then Came the Interstate Highway System
Fast-forward to the 1950s and 1960s.
America embarked on another massive infrastructure investment: the Interstate Highway System.
Once again, there was opposition.
Critics warned about increased noise, pollution, traffic, destruction of farmland, and damage to local businesses. Residents feared highways would divide neighborhoods, displace families, reduce property values, and threaten the economic vitality of towns bypassed by new routes.
Grassroots organizations organized protests, circulated petitions, and pressured elected officials to stop or reroute highway construction.
And again, many concerns were justified. Interstate construction displaced entire neighborhoods in some cities and created consequences that communities are still addressing today.
But the interstate system also transformed commerce, manufacturing, transportation, tourism, and economic development across the country.
Consider what Interstate 94 and Interstate 29 mean to Fargo and the surrounding region today.
It’s difficult to imagine our regional economy without them.
Two different centuries. Two massive infrastructure investments. Two examples of significant public opposition. And two developments that fundamentally shaped the economic future of our communities.
Now It’s Data Centers
Today, we’re watching another nationwide infrastructure buildout, driven by cloud computing, digital services, and artificial intelligence.
Data centers are part of the physical infrastructure that makes our increasingly digital economy possible.
Every time we use online banking, stream a movie, store photos in the cloud, or ask an AI tool a question, we’re relying on infrastructure somewhere.
That infrastructure requires land, electricity, investment, and people to build and operate it.
And just like railroads and interstate highways, it creates both opportunities and challenges for the communities where it’s located.
North Dakota has some real advantages. We have available land, a favorable climate for certain cooling technologies, access to energy resources, and a history of supporting major infrastructure and industrial development.
That doesn’t mean every proposed data center is a good fit for every community.
It does mean we should be careful about closing the door before we fully understand what’s being proposed.
The Problem With Moratoriums
One of the ideas being discussed is placing moratoriums on data center development.
I understand the motivation. Communities want time to study the impacts, establish rules, and protect their residents.
But there’s a difference between taking the time to make informed decisions and simply putting up a sign that says we’re closed for business.
A moratorium might pause development in one community, but it won’t stop the demand for data centers. That demand is being driven by national and global economic forces far beyond North Dakota.
And if companies can’t build here, they’ll look elsewhere.
Other states and communities are competing for those same investments.
The question isn’t whether data centers will be built.
The question is whether North Dakota wants to participate in the economic opportunities they create, and under what conditions.
We should be asking how to structure development agreements, protect existing utility customers, manage water resources, establish appropriate locations, and ensure communities receive meaningful benefits.
Those are productive conversations.
Simply saying no without considering the answers or opportunities isn’t much of an economic development strategy.
We’ve Done This Before
North Dakota has a history of embracing major economic opportunities.
Railroads helped build our agricultural economy.
The interstate highway system connected our communities to the rest of the country.
Energy development, including oil exploration and production, created enormous economic activity and helped reshape our state’s financial position.
None of these developments happened without controversy, risk, or legitimate concerns.
And none came without costs.
But our state benefited because people were willing to recognize opportunities, make difficult decisions, and invest in the future.
That same choice is in front of us today.
We can’t stop technological advancement. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure aren’t going away.
In fact, most of us are already using these technologies every single day, whether we realize it or not.
So why wouldn’t we want to participate in the economic activity that supports them?
Be Smart. Ask Questions. But Stay Open for Business.
I’m not suggesting we give data center developers a blank check.
Quite the opposite.
We should ask tough questions. We should demand transparency. We should establish reasonable rules. We should protect taxpayers, utility customers, and our natural resources. And we should make sure the economic benefits are real, not just promises.
Some projects may not make sense. Some locations may not be appropriate. And some developers may not be willing to meet the standards our communities establish.
That’s fine.
But we shouldn’t confuse responsible oversight with resistance to change.
The Luddites couldn’t stop the Industrial Revolution. Communities couldn’t stop the expansion of railroads or the interstate highway system. And North Dakota isn’t going to stop the growth of artificial intelligence by refusing to participate in the infrastructure that supports it.
We can’t fight the underlying economics of technological change. But we can decide how we respond to it.
Let’s keep asking questions. Let’s listen to the answers. Let’s establish reasonable expectations and hold developers accountable.
And let’s remember that some of the infrastructure we now consider essential was once viewed as disruptive, controversial, and even threatening.
The next generation may look at today’s data center investments the same way we look at railroads and interstate highways.
We have an opportunity to help shape that future.
Because if we don’t, someone else will.