Asklemmy

43893 readers

917 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

-16

Solarpunk sounds likely doomsday prepper shit (beehaw.org)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 5 months ago

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

[–] darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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".

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm not negative, I'm skeptical. Also, where did I insult you?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 .

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Juno@beehaw.org 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So you go around and pick on other people too and try to force your opinion on them eh?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 5 months ago

Good point