As much as it sounds like a nice future, I've come to the painful realization that solarpunk triggers the same trap that the "Technology will save us" mind virus lures us into. A future where we get to keep doing the same destructive practices that abundant evidence suggests are the prescription for the termination of life on earth. Concepts like "Abundance without waste" are like saying "Humane torture", sorry that's an oxymoron. We have absolutely zero idea how to maintain current lifestyles for N billion people across tens of thousands of years. 10k years of heavy mining to replace solar panels will poison this world, and that's just the tip of the iceberg of problems with ideas like solarpunk.
> a future where we get to keep doing the same destructive practices
If anything, I see it as an antidote to the trap you describe. It doesn't reject technology (it's fundamentally progressive) but it also doesn't imagine a future where technology solves all the problems.
The objective of Solarpunk is to promote self sufficiency and living within natural limits. It is very much about re-imagining culture and exploring what a meaningful lifestyle looks like with a strong focus on community and creative self-expression. It resists the ideology of limitless growth and necessary scarcity while also saying that human societies can continue to progress and flourish in ways that matter.
Every genre of "punk" has explicitly resisted the status-quo and this one is no different.
The real mind virus is that "Technology is evil" and it's been infecting the western world for the last fifty years. Technology is completely indifferent to human and environmental outcomes.
Solar panels are insanely resource efficient, and every study has shown lifespans in practice far exceeding initial expectations. Due to the fact that energy is inherently valuable, I'm sure there'll be a rich circular economy for solar cells/panels (same goes for batteries).
No idea if it leads to a solarpunk "utopia" or just a world with much cleaner air, and electricity abundance.
> Technology is completely indifferent to human and environmental outcomes.
"technology" doesn't mean anything... Are we talking about mass made penicillin or the Twitter guy pretending to solve the world by replacing 1.5B ICE vehicles with 1.5B EVs ? I can defend the former all day long, but to believe the later you have to be quite uninformed and subscribe to the technosolutionist cult blindly
I'm still not convinced anything good came out of mainstream tech after google maps. We get a few ultra niche gadgets that are useful but the bulk of it is at the service of the people in charge and are net negatives to the bulk of humanity
bulk of it is at the service of the people in
charge and are net negatives to the bulk of
humanity
Do we underrate the impact of YouTube and LLM videos when it comes to mundane household know-how?
In the last year alone they have combined to help me with dozens upon dozens of upon dozens of things, from changing the air filter in my car to waterproofing a canopy. It has been an extremely challenging year for me for personal reasons and there's so much stuff that would have gone undone without this combo.
Asking ChatGPT why synthetic motor oil lasts longer than regular oil is perhaps not a "sexy" application of the technology, especially when concerned with weightier matters like whether or not LLMs will achieve AGI and/or replace software engineers. But this has indeed been life-enhancing.
Yes, LLMs need double-checking to ensure they're not hallucinating. And yes we've been able to use tech to "learn how to do things" ever since search engines were invented or perhaps even back to the days of newsgroups and BBSs. But it's so much more effective than its ever been IME.
(YouTube technically predates GMaps, but Google purchased YT a year after GMaps, and while Google's stewardship has not been perfect, their decision to allow literally unbounded growth has allowed so much niche information to take root there)
I have also personally found Apple's AirTags to be life-enhancing as fuck. They are, of course, enabled by the sort of always-connected networked life that brings a lot of other ills. But it is also invaluable to me from both a practical standpoint and a state-of-mind standpoint to not have to worry where my important shit is.
I mean yeah that's cool, motor oils, memes and all that. Meanwhile we destroyed ~70% of life on earth in the last 50 years. But cool, I'm glad you figured out this very deep metaphysical quest every human being has to complete in their life to attain a higher plane of existence: which motor oil should I use!?
I'll tell that to the kids with deformed necks and backs who scroll tiktok in groups for 2-3 hours a day in the bench in front of my building, I'm sure it'll enhance their lives
This was a surprising and confusing reply. It feels almost, but not quite entirely, disconnected from what I wrote.
What I did: Pointed out a few bits of technology that have had a positive impact on my life.
What I did not do: At no point did I mention TikTok. Or motor oil. I also did not make any kind of larger statements like, "all technology is good" or "most technology is good" or even express an optimistic view about technology in general. In fact I kind of share your overarching pessimism regarding technology. However, I must again point out that my post ventured into no such territory.
Here's what I think happened.
You skimmed my post. Quickly, and you skipped most of the words and didn't really understand anything. This is probably why you're talking about "motor oil" when I mentioned air filters. This happened not because you are stupid but because you scanned it quickly perhaps while your mind was on something else. The smattering of words that did register with you looked like some kind of glib techno-optimism in the face of a burning world, and you became irritated enough to write that utter non-sequitir.
But anyway, yeah. I probably agree with ya on the overall state of things.
> Have you heard of this new concept called recycling?
Yes, I have. If you have absurdly good 90% recycling - unheard of in this area - and a cycle period of 10 years, you run through material once entirely in less than 500 years.
Sure the Si part is readily available, but what about the metal used for building the thing that transports the thing to the other thing that transports your solar panels for recycling? What about waste products of smelting when recycling? What about the ground water use? And here is the real killer, what about the cost? Show me a design that scales to even 1 billion people, without forcing the rest into slave like conditions.
Our technology, is not sustainable period. Practically none of it is. That thought does not bring joy to me. I used to subscribe to the technology and ingenuity will fix it mindset. But the harsh reality is, 999/1000 needles point in one direction. It's desperation to cling to that one last little maybe, the verdict has been reached. Physics doesn't care about our sentiments or arguments, our politicians can't reason with physics or bribe it.
In Tom Murphy's words:
> Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life.
With enough energy you cook the surface of the earth, if we keep up the current growth in energy use we reach 100C surface temperature in less than 500 years. I don't know about you that's not the place I want to be. Sustainable doesn't mean a sterile world where some billionaires live in 100 million dollar apocalypse shelters. Saying our technology can be sustainable, is akin to saying our research can unlock faster than light travel. I mean sure, how would I prove it can't? But very much like faster than light travel we haven't even figured out the basics. Our recycling doesn't work across million+ cycles like it does in nature. Our engineered materials require enormous waste and land usage. Our economies and societies are built on the premise of endless growth. We don't know how to do any major part of the myriad parts that power modernity for 10k+ years, let alone the whole tree of dependencies. Even if we had progressed past the fundamental theory phase, execution isn't easy, especially if it requires every government in the world cooperating.
So I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet the well being of our children on humanity discovering and commercializing faster than light travel within our lifetime. Because that's what you are suggesting.
"if we keep up the current growth in energy use we reach 100C surface temperature in less than 500 years"
Citation needed.
"Our economies and societies are built on the premise of endless growth"
Like any life. It grows until it runs out of ressources. Then it stagnates. New technology moves the limits.
"So I don't know about you, but I wouldn't bet the well being of our children on humanity discovering and commercializing faster than light travel within our lifetime. Because that's what you are suggesting"
And no I am not, because I really doubt your numbers and assumptions.
Interesting calculation and I did not read your assumption carefully.
"keep up the current growth in energy use "
But this was not what I was talking about at all.
Energy comes to earth via sun, whether we use it, or not. For all our practical matters, it will be plenty to recycle all of our solar panels.
Because human population growth won't continue, like it did after industrialisation moved the limits of growth.
Discovering (allmost) speed of life travel would again moved those limits.
Till then humans will mate, as long as they see a future for their babies. As long as there is food and space. If there isn't, they largely won't reproduce. It is a common effect, can also be studied in rat populations in a lab. Self regulation.
"Have you seen what happens to slime molds once they run out of resources?"
They try to find a better habitat. Some succed, some fail.
I agree that it's fluffy and empty. Utopia in art isn't worth much except for advertising. However...
> Concepts like "Abundance without waste" are like saying "Humane torture", sorry that's an oxymoron
Sustainable abundance isn't a logical contradiction, even if we haven't figured it out yet. "Waste" is unavoidable, and as a word and an idea, it tends to take on moral dimensions that overshadow the practical.
Please don't use the mind virus adage. That term is completely burnt by Musk's braindead agenda—there is no virus, if anything, there's opposing viewpoints that you may not agree with, but are just as valid as yours.
I'm a little torn, I see your point. I don't get to choose by myself how language and symbols are co-opted and used - see the whole "all lives matter" debacle that had many well meaning ignorant people spouting off racist garbage. On the other hand, do I really want to let an egotistical asshole - the very one actually fallen prey to the thing he claims so many others are victims of - dictate how I use language? There is a movement to reclaim words - or maybe not let them be misused - in a way that doesn't just roll over, hading over parts of the language, whenever fascistic assholes decide to appropriate them.
That makes sense. I’m not sure, though, if your argument really applies to terms made up (or at least coined) by said fascistic assholes; „Sieg Heil“ is very likely no phrase that’ll ever see any justification for using, even if somehow claimed by counter-fascists.
Then again, it’s probably a taunting metaphor to describe a certain ineradicable, flaming fanatism that cannot be tainted by facts anymore, which is what you used it for, so that’s that.
The worst part of the aesthetic is the actual cost of building in it.
Solarpunk designs are notorious for being expensive to make, compared to native ones they try to crib off of.
Some of it could be reduced with say 3D printing, or more advanced ground engineering. Some of it requires particular local conditions.
See, solarpunk is distinct from classic futurism in that it is supposed to be both bespoke and green. Zero waste is not the goal.
None of it scales... Which degrowth advocates think actually helps.
The question of cost brings out its shadow - colonialism in a green paint. Someone pays the costs of manufacturing, mining and transport.
Why must everything always "scale" in order to be good? That's a very limited view, IMO.
I've come to love working in my garden, producing fruit, vegetables, eggs, honey. None of it has to scale. Our 8 chickens provide our six households with eggs. My 6m2 vegetable patch gives me enough veggies for my household and some more (to give away). My three hives produce enough honey and wax to sell off and give away.
None of it scales. None of it is optimized. None of it has to. My time spent on these "chores" is free, because I recharge and enjoy that time.
I am aware this isn't "self sustaining". But it does relieve from my footprint a lot. I'm not contributing to bio industry, contributing much less or non at all to food dragged all over the world. All of it while gaining mental energy, joy and happiness.
We could easily start doing more of this. It doesn't have to be absolute and "everything or nothing". I mean, I drink coffee, for example that won't grow here. But only a little, because all the tea that I can and do grow, brings my coffee "needs" down to a handful of coffees a week.
I don't want it to scale or be made efficient, because it would remove a lot of the joy I get from it.
> Why must everything always "scale" in order to be good?
Because there's eight billion of us. A lot of things work for one person but not for everybody. The big issues of land use, density, water, and transport end up forcing people into choice that perhaps nobody ultimately wants.
(this is not a reason for you or anybody else not to do it! But it's a reason against all sorts of "why doesn't everybody just X")
Yet we've seen how centralising everything has made our world a lot less resilient. Redundancies are good, at least to a certain degree. If more people had a small vegetable patch, we didn't need as many soil-destroying farming mega-corps, and would use less aggressive fertilisers and herbicides, for example.
Biodiversity is a very good mechanism for resilience. Even on a tiny scale: if this year one of my tomato varieties doesn't produce due to heat/cold/damp, some of the others will. And if all tomatoes fail, I have beans. Or salad. And potatoes, and turnips, and carrots.
Yet if all you have is one variety of potatoes, and it gets sick, it can upset an entire country, kill millions¹
You'd think the solution is obvious, but the opposite is happening. Especially the staple foods that are now feeding the billions, are rapidly dwindling in varieties. Some crops, like bananas and agave already down to effectively one genetic variety - if (when) that fails, we'll lose the ability to produce bananas or agave (tequila, etc) almost entirely. Imagine this happening to rice or grain or potatoes.
A lot of the reasons why scaling is necessary come down to reducing marginal costs and maximising profitability. Those are different equations to sustainability.
For example, a big part of an industrial farm's "efficiency" is down to reduction of labour costs and optimisation of logistics, but the actual environmental resource usage does not scale along the same curve.
Many of that "efficiency" is achieved by externalizing costs.
The farm can (must?) produce cheaper (or have bigger margins), by polluting both its environment and the very resources it needs to run on in the long term. It "externalizes" costs to the community around it and to a future.
Pollution, depletion, animal abuse, reduced biodiversity, sped up resistance to antibiotics, etc etc.
This isn't by any means "sustainable" in the literal sense: that it can continue, let alone grow, like this. We're on borrowed time already. It's very clear that the current model also cannot sustain billions. So dismissing alternatives because they cannot sustain billions is a poor argument.
That's fine in and of itself, as a hobby. But it's not going to save the world, either, due to aformentioned inability to scale (most importantly, it would be impossible for the whole world to live like this: the world population is large enough that we rely on high-yield farming).
Is it? All my "hobby" needs, is to feed me and my household and some friends and they me. My "hobby" doesn't need to feed the entire world population.
All I want is for it to *reduce* the footprint of five, maybe ten people around me. It does that. And therefore is a net benefit. Ten people with less emissions, less pollution, less animal harm, and more fun. Even if only one in hundred thousand people does this, thats 700000 people with significantly reduced footprint.
I honestly have a problem with the absolutism in such discussions. Something doesn't have to "feed the entire world" in order to help us move forward.
To compare the 700000 figure: Tesla churns out 3 times that amount of cars in a year. If we presume these teslas are bought by people who want to reduce their footprint, and that the reduction of one bought tesla is close to my reduction (its not, its obviously much more complex) just being a bit more self-sustaining would be similar to a third of the win all of Tesla contributes.
And if we agree that "one tesla" equals "some reduction of footprint" (I don't agree, though), every tesla is a win. This isn't only valuable until every car is an EV. It's not absolutes.
> implies you're solving a problem for yourself, not the world.
But I don't have to solve the problem of feeding the entire world sustainably¹. I just have to make sure that my contribution to a more sustainable world is net positive. It is.
The same argument often comes up in "Being vegetarian": my personal choice won't solve animal welfare or carbon emissions of food production. But all the vegetarians in the world do make a large difference.
> 80% of the resources you are buying to support your hobby farm
That's a bold statement to make and one that I know, for a fact, to be untrue. I source most myself. You truly don't need that much to grow 20kg of apples or 10kg of tomatoes in a year. Nearly all of what it needs is provided by "nature" and my direct surroundings. From compost to seeds to sun, water and CO2. I really don't need that much to grow this. Same for keeping bees. Some wood for their hives - less wood per hive than the pallet used for shipping your honey from China into Europe. Some tools and some (reusable) packaging. But non of that compares to what's needed to get that plastic squeezy jar of honey into your cabinet. I'm certain my net emission is far less - per jar, per tomato, per apple than when I'd buy them in a supermarket.
¹ And that ignores the fact that the current model of food production also cannot feed the entire world population on generational timescale. So to argue that my "contribution" won't feed the world is a strange one.
>The same argument often comes up in "Being vegetarian": my personal choice won't solve animal welfare or carbon emissions of food production. But all the vegetarians in the world do make a large difference.
Here's how I think about it.
You reducing carbon emissions by reducing your agri footprint by going vegan is an improvement over the alternative even if I wouldn't.
Everyone doing this is a major improvement over the alternative.
Me not using tarps, pesticides, not using synthetic fertilizers and caring about runoff, etc and being a backyard farmer rather than having a lawn in this endless suburb like i'm already doing is an improvement over the alternative. (even tho i need more time and land to cover most of my carbs and a bit more than some quail too)
But spreading out 8 billion people and making everyone backyard farmers is probably an ecological disaster.
