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?

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • darkphotonstudio@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • darkphotonstudio@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • HobbitFoot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.