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?
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?
Without trying to treat you combatively, I am reading a lot of the same things in the way you talk about things.
I’ll say again that its possible you and I have seen different solarpunks, but I think you may have waded into a personally difficult topic, since solarpunk as a concept is supposed to be instilled with an awareness that certain kinds of collapse are certain, but that there are things people can do to make life worth living.
When you are dealing with people trying to find hope and talk about what they can do to live well and not contribute to the worlds problems, and you talk negatively, you are going to find responses like these.
Hope that didn’t feel like a pile on
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.
Oh yeah absolutely. I think I was vaguely thinking this in one of my other responses. Fwiw I can imagine seeing basically exactly what you described as some kind of bad doomsday prepper negativist solarpunk, but I couldn’t get over the sense of it being a strawman, or, less dramatically, just the opposite of what a lot of people seem to think they’re joining.
I was going to respond elsewhere - I don’t think you have to be sold on these solarpunks and their ideas. Not in a mocking way – but I would say my encounters with solarpunks are like my encounters with squirrels. I see them very occasionally, we don’t interact, I take pleasure in the encounter, maybe appreciate something I didn’t before, and then I move on. Based on that you could imagine how little data I have on them
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?
Good point