Ask A Genius 1537: U.S. Supreme Court Conversion Therapy Debate and AI Energy Demand
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/08
How should courts balance free speech claims against bans on harmful conversion therapy, and how can policymakers meet AI-driven power demand without undermining climate progress?
Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors faces a U.S. Supreme Court challenge framed as free-speech, raising tensions between professional standards and religious pseudoscience. Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner argue evidence, ethics, and patient protection should prevail over rights claims. They compare outlawing a dangerous, ineffective “therapy” to banning lessons in flying. In parallel, U.S. power demand is projected to hit new records as AI, cryptocurrency, and electrification expand, potentially eroding emissions gains unless clean generation, storage, and efficiency scale quickly. The pair endorse science-based policy, guardrails on harmful practices, and pragmatic energy planning to align liberty with wellbeing.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: U.S. Supreme Court skeptical toward Colorado LGBT conversion therapy.
Rick Rosner: So, somebody must have taken Colorado to court. Like California, it’s illegal to run “pray away the gay” therapy. They’ve done studies, and it doesn’t work. You can’t make somebody not gay with treatment.
A lot of that so-called therapy happens in a religious context. Colorado must have passed a law similar to California’s, banning it because it doesn’t work, it makes people suffer, and it’s cruel and homophobic. So, you shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
However, some group of people must have challenged the law, and it has reached the Supreme Court, according to what you just said. And now the Court is saying, “Well, maybe it does work” or “Maybe people have the right to try it,” even though all the evidence shows it’s nonsense. That is not comforting.
What did the Supreme Court say? Obviously, no final ruling yet, because you would have mentioned it.
Jacobsen: The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared ready to side with a challenge—on free speech grounds—to a Colorado law banning psychotherapists from conducting conversion therapy. The law prohibits attempts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The conservative justices posed questions during arguments, showing sympathy toward Christian counsellor Kaylee Chiles, who challenged the law under First Amendment protections. And the Court has a 6–3 conservative majority.
Rosner: That sounds terrible. If I were a therapist and I had a technique that I claimed could teach people to fly, and after therapy, nobody could fly—and worse, many people got hurt trying—it would be reasonable to pass legislation banning “learn-to-fly therapy.” It’s dangerous, and it doesn’t work.
For me to then claim “freedom of speech” to defend it? That doesn’t seem like an argument that should be entertained.
Because if there’s a ton of it—well, is it free speech to force bullshit on people who are defenceless against the bullshit? I don’t know. It sounds like a garbage angle on this stuff. And the people who run those conversion therapies—they’re assholes.
Some of them may be sincere, good-hearted Christians, but a lot of them are cruel, cynical shysters. Comments? You can’t really think these people are earnest, just trying to help.
Jacobsen: Whatever the empirical evidence states, I’ve tended to side with it throughout my professional life. I interviewed a man who went through conversion therapy years ago. That interview was for Atheist Republic, the largest online atheist platform on Facebook.
My understanding of the experience is that was, and is, cruel, unscientific, and baseless. The American Psychiatric Association has issued statements—most recently in the past year—reaffirming that view. So, any move to bypass the professional consensus in psychology, psychiatry, or psychotherapy, and to legislate based on Christian theology into law, is wrong.
Rosner: Okay, so we’re in concordance there. All right, one more thing, and then I’ve got to go.
Jacobsen: U.S. power use is projected to reach record highs in 2025 and 2026, due to cryptocurrency, AI, and electrification.
Rosner: So, we’re going to use more power in the U.S. than ever before because we’re burning so much juice on AI calculations. The carbon footprint per capita in America had been going down about 1% a year—until AI. Now it looks like AI is pushing it back up.
We had some hope of mitigating climate change because the global population was projected to peak in the 2050s, rather than 2100. Maximum humanity—about 9.5 billion instead of 11 billion, which is a 15% discount on the number of people needing juice.
And now AI is going to eat up that extra juice, putting us back where we were. Though maybe not as bad—AI won’t mostly burn gasoline. It’ll use solar, which is far cleaner than fossil fuels. Nuclear is also way cleaner.
But really, what should happen is that these AI motherfuckers—some of whom are out of control—need to be reined in. Because energy use is actually one of the least of our worries when it comes to being destroyed by AI.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 