I don’t know where else to put this. I’m sorry if it’s in the wrong place and will move it if it’s not appropriate here.
Every time I read anything from so-called solarpunks, it reads like slightly left of centre ravings of doomsday preppers. They seem to love many of the same fascist talking points. For example, individualism self-sufficiency , which sounds a lot like the frontier cowboy fantasies of right-wing nutters. They promote what essentially is subsistence farming, which is a terrible way to live. There’s a reason this kind of shit leads to famine in developing countries. An almost enthusiastic fantasy surrounding primitism and the loss of technology. There are so many issues, I could go on. Unless I’m missing something (possible) I don’t see much appealing about solarpunk because it seems to have a delusional nostalgia for the “good old days”, much in the way conservativism does.
Is it really as crackpot as it sounds? If not, what am I missing?
You must log in or register to comment.
Solarpunk is still very communitarian with a healthy dash of anarchism. The focus is on sustainability and using technology to support both human and ecological flourishing rather than that of metahuman entities like businesses, states, or organizations.
What you see as “doomsday pepper shit” and “subsistence farming” is radical anticonsumerism. People wanting to support themselves and each other rather than make money and buy products.
Solarpunks aren’t luddites or antisocial, quite the opposite. That’s what you see to be missing.
Ok but you do see the problem with subsistence farming, no? Because at the end of the day, that’s what it is. If there is no movement of food to where it’s needed, and communities are insular, one bad harvest and people starve to death. You say you aren’t anti-technology, but what I’m seeing is anti-tech.
Yes, I see the problem with subsistence farming. Again, that’s not the goal. Tech-assisted, ecologically sustainable farming is.
Green cities, too, of course, but your objections seems to stem from misidentifing solarpunk as being about being some kind of off-grid individualists living off the land, which it is just not.
Yes, I’m picking up that “rugged individualist” energy. I did admit, I could be wrong. I guess I’m just looking for some sort of assurance that isn’t the case.
I’m not entirely sold on the whole solarpunk thing, either, but I got more of an “increase your self-sufficiency, reduce your gratuitous consumption” vibe. Solar panels, high-efficiency lighting/energy usage, self-hosted computing, low-power computing. These kinds of things can add resiliency, not reduce it, especially if you live in a place with unreliable regional services such as statewide blackout/brownouts.
And there are communal aspects as well. I’ve seen tool libraries brought up, where a community can get access to a higher quality set of tools than they would as individuals. There are other discussions on defining third places that aren’t driven by commercial interests.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That was helpful. I’m not convinced but it cleared up your personal ideas. I guess I see dangers that parallel mistakes made in the past by revolutionary governments. Things need to change but I have serious concerns. As much as I’d like to believe in a solarpunk future, what I’m reading doesn’t instill much confidence.
sustainable farming leads to famine
What
I’m speechless. I have no speech. How on earth can a person wake up in the morning and have a thought like this.
Because not everyone thinks the same way. I can appreciate the basic concept of solarpunk and would love to be able to say I’m all into it, but there are some important questions I personally need resolved. If I didn’t ask, I wouldn’t know. They may not be questions you have, however that doesn’t mean they’re not valid.
I didn’t write that. I wrote, “subsistence farming”.
Oops. Your point is still garbage
deleted by creator
I think the main thing you’re missing is when people are self-reliant, you don’t hear about them.
Getting ready for a future of renewable energy, making society more sustainable, why are these things you resist?
If it’s just the naming you have issues with, countries talk about this all the time in terms of critical energy independence, that’s solar punk at the nation state level
Because what I see is knee-jerk reaction to tech and as you said, "self-reliance"which sounds like a cross between American exceptionalist frontier nonsense mixed with feudalism. It also parallels the anti-globalist wingnut paranoia. If that is supposed to be sustainability, no thanks. And no, I’m not an anarchist, I’m a socialist. Your ideals don’t have a monopoly on a more sustainable future. It’s like libertarians saying, “why do you hate freedom”.
You’re really negative.
I didn’t say they were my ideas, but you’ve ascribed them to me and insulted me in the same sentence.
Whatever better socialist future you’re envisioning, that’s great, let’s work towards a better future for everybody
I’m not negative, I’m skeptical. Also, where did I insult you?
deleted by creator
Not at all. It was as much a challenge as a question. I suspect some push back, I was just hoping I’d learn something useful. What I’m picking up is that it’s not a fully formed set of ideals agreed upon by everyone. Which I suppose I shouldn’t expect among leftists anyway lol. Thanks for the response.
deleted by creator
Wingnut paranoia
Your ideas don’t have a monopoly on a more sustainable future
So you’re saying they’re my ideas, and that their wing nut paranoid ideas. That’s an insult and an attribution
That wasn’t my intention and the quote is out of context (you left out “sounds like”) but if you want to be insulted, that’s your perogative .
I think a reasonable interpretation of your previous comment, was that it was intended to be insulting, and combative. Perhaps I am mistaken, and I’m willing to entertain that… But that’s my reading
Communication is not what is intended, it is what is perceived.
So you go around and pick on other people too and try to force your opinion on them eh?
The meaning and ideas of solarpunk are still evolving, but the main themes are freedom, community, ecology and pragmatism. I won’t go over the anarchic organisation of communities since I think you mistook the pragmatism for primitivism.
Solarpunk is not about primitivism and a return to a low-technological era, and neither is it a high tech cyberpunk spinoff, as some others think. Solarpunk is about using practical solutions that are also ethical and egolocially friendly. This often means not throwing stuff away, but fixing what can be fixed and reusing what can be reused, because mass production and consumerism is seen as a damaging force. So instead of trying to make up new tech and produce new things, solarpunk would ask you to first consider whether you can do something already with what you have, which means that a DIY approach is encouraged. However, if new technology can improve our lives without damaging everything else, it’s acceptable.
And it is the complete opposite of thinking about the “good old days”, as solarpunk is looking only towards the future. The ‘punk’ in the name means that when you look at all the doom and gloom in the future (capitalism, wars, global warming) you don’t fall into despair, but instead try to play your part in your community to fight it and promote a lifestyle of mutual aid and a respect for nature, with whatever level of technology can give you the best results.
That was my attempt at a short presentation. We have a wiki and a manifesto if anyone is interested
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe it’s the way stuff is written that has given me a bad impression.
deleted by creator
Subsistence farming is a terrible way to live
Ma’am are you okay?
Did I miss something cuz solarpunk is high tech to me
I think something about the style of writing or terms I’m not familiar with. Some of what I read on social media was off-putting, but it’s likely I misunderstood.
It sounds like it. To me it’s really a wholesome combination of tech and nature. Like imagine growing up with all the benefits of tech but in a peaceful natural environment. That could be a farm but I don’t see that it has to be.
I can’t think of much I’d rather not do than live on a farm. I’m from the Midwest (Indiana) and it is a backwards, intolerant place full of backwards, intolerant people. They have tech and they still suck. I also hate gardening so that’s also in my bottom 10. The ideals of solarpunk sound nice, but I don’t know how well that would play out in reality. I probably wouldn’t like it.
Oh I know what that’s like, it sucks. And I used to dislike nature too, so I get that.
Sure good question how that would play out. We can also wonder that about the culture we live in right now.
What kind of society would you like? I wonder what you think of art deco such as the Chrysler building.
What kind of society would you like?
Oh jeez, I’m not going to try and tackle that question right now, but I will say I’d like a much fairer one where people are taken care of.
I wonder what you think of art deco such as the Chrysler building.
I love Art Deco! The Chrysler building is beautiful, but I don’t think the world needs skyscrapers.
What about the hoover building?
Just going for something techy here that’s without nature
Techy without nature? I don’t know where you’re going with this.
An almost enthusiastic fantasy surrounding primitism and the loss of technology.
I would disagree with that statement. Solarpunk people aren’t Amish.
Technology is ever present, but the idea is to use technology to limit its impact on nature and live more in harmony with it. For instance, a house designed to require very little heating and cooling isn’t less technologically advanced as one that needs tons of HVAC.
And some solarpunk ideas of building resiliency aren’t crazy ideas but are based on sound engineering design principles.
Thanks for the clarification!
Yeah, thanks for clearing that up. I think I just got a bad impression from some posts I read and terms I may have misconstrued.
