A Solarpunk Manifesto(re-des.org)
re-des.org
A Solarpunk Manifesto
http://www.re-des.org/a-solarpunk-manifesto/
211 comments
Well, the split is probably related to how solarpunk isn't really related to the punk movement. Cyberpunk art usually describes dystopian environments, and the way individuals and communities adapt to is and subvert it.
On the other hand, solarpunk art is an overtly optimistic movement, which leaves very little room for a confrontational political message. The example tweet you cited is pretty, with a "just add trees" city, where the necessary trappings of a vertical city (mass transportation, crowds, pollution, etc) are absent.
This sounds a bit critical of the solarpunk movement, but it's honestly hard for me to reconcile the hard problems I face and what I see in this movement. Merely adding the "punk" affix is not going to transform what would probably better be called solar-hippie.
On the other hand, solarpunk art is an overtly optimistic movement, which leaves very little room for a confrontational political message. The example tweet you cited is pretty, with a "just add trees" city, where the necessary trappings of a vertical city (mass transportation, crowds, pollution, etc) are absent.
This sounds a bit critical of the solarpunk movement, but it's honestly hard for me to reconcile the hard problems I face and what I see in this movement. Merely adding the "punk" affix is not going to transform what would probably better be called solar-hippie.
I don't see why optimism and political confrontation can't coexist. In fact, given the dystopian mess that powerful institutions are foisting on us these days, an optimistic alternative could be the most confrontational message. It just has to be clear that we're not going to get there with business as usual.
You should read this part as a summary of the differences between punk and solarpunk, not a treaty on mixing optimism and political struggle.
> It just has to be clear that we're not going to get there with business as usual.
That's the part I don't see in solarpunk currently. The social structure is glossed over, and the technical side looks very much like technological messianism. The transformation itself is rarely addressed. I honestly enjoy the aesthetic, but I would call it calming rather than tought-provoking, that doesn't really leave solid foundations for political action.
> It just has to be clear that we're not going to get there with business as usual.
That's the part I don't see in solarpunk currently. The social structure is glossed over, and the technical side looks very much like technological messianism. The transformation itself is rarely addressed. I honestly enjoy the aesthetic, but I would call it calming rather than tought-provoking, that doesn't really leave solid foundations for political action.
I think an important part of political mobilization is a positive message. Not just in the sense of optimism, but in the sense that there's a particular thing we want to create instead of simply wanting to destroy what exists right now. A negative message of simply criticizing what exists is a lot less powerful than a positive message of what could be if it weren't for what currently exists.
But what's the message? Let's wait for utopian technology to solve our problems? We like big cities with trees?
Constructed utopian hope as an ultrarationalized countermovement to the apathy of irrational, profit-motivated urbanization.
[deleted]
There is new urban planning that focuses on bike/ped travel and reduces vehicle use, and planners are doing that right now (superblocks are just one example). This is expected to reduce pollution and traffic congestion, and make urban areas more walkable/bikeable, as well as better looking. Positive messages with creative solutions are out there for people who look.
A lot of solarpunk art and such is about the exact opposite: reducing dependence on cars and fossil fuels and building local, sustainable communities. You're not ever going to see a strip mall or a bedroom neighborhood in a solarpunk utopia, and often times beyond public infrastructure there's not a big emphasis on high-tech living like there is in, ex: cyberpunk
Yeah reminds me of Alice Bailey's dogmatic claptrap and the Lucis Trust
I suppose I'm looking at point 3 of the article here (mentions "a post-scarcity, post-hierarchy, post-capitalistic world").
If we remove all the reasons for conflict, it is difficult to see what political confrontation means. If we live in a post scarcity society - why do I care about tax rates? If the world is post-hierarchy - why do I care about the qualities of the people who are no longer my superiors? Post scarcity and post capitalism go almost hand in hand, capitalism is a tool to manage scarcity. Hierarchy too, in a practical sense.
The essence of politics is how to resolve these questions. Assuming that we can do away with them using technology is just ... if we could that would be great. If the jump from pre-modern to industrial didn't do it then realistically it isn't going to happen.
If we remove all the reasons for conflict, it is difficult to see what political confrontation means. If we live in a post scarcity society - why do I care about tax rates? If the world is post-hierarchy - why do I care about the qualities of the people who are no longer my superiors? Post scarcity and post capitalism go almost hand in hand, capitalism is a tool to manage scarcity. Hierarchy too, in a practical sense.
The essence of politics is how to resolve these questions. Assuming that we can do away with them using technology is just ... if we could that would be great. If the jump from pre-modern to industrial didn't do it then realistically it isn't going to happen.
Punk is used these days to mean something more like “aesthetic” than anything related to rebellion or its original meaning.
[deleted]
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
To be honest, my art usually involves fingerpaint renderings of penguins being massacred by demons but I mean, it’s up to the viewer to make their own interpretation I suppose…
... But do the penguins fight back sometimes ? :)
Yeah, they always win even though they have worse technology mostly just through force of numbers. Baffling really..
Maybe in an alternate universe we could have had zfs, smf and dtrace…
Maybe in an alternate universe we could have had zfs, smf and dtrace…
We still kinda have it… but yeah, there was a lot of promise (and use!) that got lost when Oracle bought Sun.
I still love the video of a guy screaming into an array of disks to show latencies spiking in a data center.
I still love the video of a guy screaming into an array of disks to show latencies spiking in a data center.
Aaand with the mention of Sun we are back on the solarpunk topic again. Great work. Circle of life, nature finds a way and all that.
With Tribbles? Like in
http://www.tribblix.org
?
Turn towards Tribblix in the next timeline transfer tunnel!
edit: What? According to about it isn't just a spin or repackaging of another illumos distribution. It's a completely independent distribution that, while sharing the key illumos technologies such as ZFS, zones, DTrace, and SMF, has been essentially built from scratch, with its own build and packaging system.
http://www.tribblix.org
?
Turn towards Tribblix in the next timeline transfer tunnel!
edit: What? According to about it isn't just a spin or repackaging of another illumos distribution. It's a completely independent distribution that, while sharing the key illumos technologies such as ZFS, zones, DTrace, and SMF, has been essentially built from scratch, with its own build and packaging system.
One aspect of Ecotopia that has alway stuck with me is their utopia was contingent on threats of violence. Let us live in peace, or we'll nuke you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia
Much like all utopias: built on top of someone else's dystopia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia
Much like all utopias: built on top of someone else's dystopia.
doesn't sound like Ecotopia needed its neighboring dystopia though. they weren't exploiting or even trading with the mainland. they just wanted to be left alone.
the crucial difference is that the Ecotopians wouldn't hinder the US improving its own quality of life if it wanted to.
the crucial difference is that the Ecotopians wouldn't hinder the US improving its own quality of life if it wanted to.
From our perspective, absolutely.
I'm trying to understand, acknowledge, make room for the losing side.
Learning about utopia/dystopia is on my to do list. I have no idea what the criteria are. Exploitation? Disempowerment? Are those feelings sufficient, regardless of the material factors?
I wonder because this is very relevant today. Fear and anxiety fueling resentment and backlash.
--
Older me thinks progress only happens thru struggle.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand." -- Frederick Douglas.
I think about this all the time. The efforts to build a sustainable future, the solarpunk protagonists, must overcome almost insurmountable opposition.
It's more than just raw power, winners and losers.
Live and let live is simply not an option.
The very notion of happy hippies being happy without them is absolutely intolerable to the US.
I'm trying to understand, acknowledge, make room for the losing side.
Learning about utopia/dystopia is on my to do list. I have no idea what the criteria are. Exploitation? Disempowerment? Are those feelings sufficient, regardless of the material factors?
I wonder because this is very relevant today. Fear and anxiety fueling resentment and backlash.
--
Older me thinks progress only happens thru struggle.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand." -- Frederick Douglas.
I think about this all the time. The efforts to build a sustainable future, the solarpunk protagonists, must overcome almost insurmountable opposition.
It's more than just raw power, winners and losers.
Live and let live is simply not an option.
The very notion of happy hippies being happy without them is absolutely intolerable to the US.
While I like Solarpunk I feel it is missing something. It hasn't grabbed me. But I support the idea.
Regards the "punk" bit though, I think the subversion is in the projection of a positive looking alternative to cyberpunk. I am sure you've seen someone comment something like:"1984 was not an instruction manual." Solarpunk is trying to be a different recipe. To plant a different seed in peoples minds as to how things could go.
Even if it is just my modern day city but with trees, it is a helluva lot better than Megacity One.
Regards the "punk" bit though, I think the subversion is in the projection of a positive looking alternative to cyberpunk. I am sure you've seen someone comment something like:"1984 was not an instruction manual." Solarpunk is trying to be a different recipe. To plant a different seed in peoples minds as to how things could go.
Even if it is just my modern day city but with trees, it is a helluva lot better than Megacity One.
>"just add trees" city, where the necessary trappings of a vertical city (mass transportation, crowds, pollution, etc) are absent.
The lists in TFA strike me as just a random grab-bag of things its author approves of, with no view to coherence or plausibility. Even in describing something as simple as visual appearance, the article's described wishes appear to be unrealized, or even unrealizable. For example, how would one combine the visual aesthetics of Art Nouveau with that of "Hayao Miyazaki" (i.e. the characteristic appearance of the films he directed).
The lists in TFA strike me as just a random grab-bag of things its author approves of, with no view to coherence or plausibility. Even in describing something as simple as visual appearance, the article's described wishes appear to be unrealized, or even unrealizable. For example, how would one combine the visual aesthetics of Art Nouveau with that of "Hayao Miyazaki" (i.e. the characteristic appearance of the films he directed).
Maybe punks from the punk rock movement didn't like neithe their tribe name taken and used for something different but it's how language/culture works.
The essence of punk is countercultural: we did this for ourselves, and we are proud that you hate it and won’t accept it.
This, of course, results in a cyclical identity crisis: can a utopian value punk maintain both their values and their punk identity in a post-punk world, where the utopian values have been realized and made mainstream? Which one will they go for: do they turn against their previously held values in an attempt to uphold their punk-ness, or do they shed their punk status now that their punk values are no longer punk?
Considering how much extraneous identity burden punks often carry in style and music, I find it unlikely that solarpunks would be content in a mainstream solarpunk world. They would prefer to maintain their punk identities and seek out a new punk.
And that is why this ”solarpunk” may yet throw its baby out with the bathwater if its message gets interpreted as a holistic lifestyle instead of what it is: an art movement.
This, of course, results in a cyclical identity crisis: can a utopian value punk maintain both their values and their punk identity in a post-punk world, where the utopian values have been realized and made mainstream? Which one will they go for: do they turn against their previously held values in an attempt to uphold their punk-ness, or do they shed their punk status now that their punk values are no longer punk?
Considering how much extraneous identity burden punks often carry in style and music, I find it unlikely that solarpunks would be content in a mainstream solarpunk world. They would prefer to maintain their punk identities and seek out a new punk.
And that is why this ”solarpunk” may yet throw its baby out with the bathwater if its message gets interpreted as a holistic lifestyle instead of what it is: an art movement.
But this doesn't apply neither to the steampunk subgenre. Maybe solarpunk comes from steampunk and not from cyberpunk.
According to Wikipedia[1] steampunk was coined "as a tongue-in-cheek variant of cyberpunk".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk#Origin_of_the_term
According to Wikipedia[1] steampunk was coined "as a tongue-in-cheek variant of cyberpunk".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk#Origin_of_the_term
Well, one tends to see many more mohawk-and-studded-jacket punks crawl the streets than cyberpunk or steampunk enthusiasts. That punk went mainstream long ago, everyone is sorta aware what that raggedy-arse looking fellow is about.
Examples of persons adopting a cyber- or steampunk identity do exist, however, in eye-catching forms as well. They just do not get appropriately identified as such, because mainstream culture has not explicitly acknowledged those punks.
Worse, the mainstream has appropriated and exploited the aesthetics of both, and thus the cyberpunk gets misidentified as some anime hackerman and the steampunk is maybe going to a costume party somewhere?
It is thus not possible to externally identify as any kind of otherpunk: general social acknowledgement of aesthetically alternative lifestyles is generally not there at all. What follows is ridicule and exclusion.
Examples of persons adopting a cyber- or steampunk identity do exist, however, in eye-catching forms as well. They just do not get appropriately identified as such, because mainstream culture has not explicitly acknowledged those punks.
Worse, the mainstream has appropriated and exploited the aesthetics of both, and thus the cyberpunk gets misidentified as some anime hackerman and the steampunk is maybe going to a costume party somewhere?
It is thus not possible to externally identify as any kind of otherpunk: general social acknowledgement of aesthetically alternative lifestyles is generally not there at all. What follows is ridicule and exclusion.
"extraneous identity burden"
Is this a phrase you have seen used before? That's pretty beautiful phrase/idea just to come up with for a random comment.
Is this a phrase you have seen used before? That's pretty beautiful phrase/idea just to come up with for a random comment.
>On the other hand, solarpunk art is an overtly optimistic movement, which leaves very little room for a confrontational political message.
I think hopeful instead of optimistic. Even going with optimistic, it seems to be optimistic about the opportunity and possibility of (political) change.
I think hopeful instead of optimistic. Even going with optimistic, it seems to be optimistic about the opportunity and possibility of (political) change.
> On the other hand, solarpunk art is an overtly optimistic movement
A solar-punk society would still be infested with Homo sapiens, with all the problems entailed thereby, so artists should be able to come up with solar punk creations that are not utopian.
A solar-punk society would still be infested with Homo sapiens, with all the problems entailed thereby, so artists should be able to come up with solar punk creations that are not utopian.
Solarpunk is "punk". We are at the point where hope is an act of rebellion.
It feels more like “-punk” has become a suffix meaning “-style” in the same way that “-gate” has become a suffix meaning “controversy”.
Quite a lot of “steampunk” isn’t very rebellious.
Quite a lot of “steampunk” isn’t very rebellious.
I found this while looking for the novel that coined the name.
From Bruce Bethke, the author of Cyberpunk book[1]:
The invention of the c-word was a conscious and deliberate act of creation on my part. I wrote the story in the early spring of 1980, and from the very first draft, it was titled "Cyberpunk." In calling it that, I was actively trying to invent a new term that grokked the juxtaposition of punk attitudes and high technology. My reasons for doing so were purely selfish and market-driven: I wanted to give my story a snappy, one-word title that editors would remember.
...
IMPORTANT POINT! I never claimed to have invented cyberpunk fiction! That honor belongs primarily to William Gibson, whose 1984 novel, Neuromancer, was the real defining work of "The Movement." (At the time, Mike Swanwick argued that the movement writers should properly be termed neuromantics, since so much of what they were doing was clearly Imitation Neuromancer.)
...
Me? I've been told that my main contribution was inventing the stereotype of the punk hacker with a mohawk. That, and I named the beast, of course.
...
If you want to find out more about the etymology of cyberpunk -- and quite a few other things, too -- take a look at Bruce's web page. Alternatively, why not just scroll down and read the story itself?
[1] http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/cpunk.htm
From Bruce Bethke, the author of Cyberpunk book[1]:
The invention of the c-word was a conscious and deliberate act of creation on my part. I wrote the story in the early spring of 1980, and from the very first draft, it was titled "Cyberpunk." In calling it that, I was actively trying to invent a new term that grokked the juxtaposition of punk attitudes and high technology. My reasons for doing so were purely selfish and market-driven: I wanted to give my story a snappy, one-word title that editors would remember.
...
IMPORTANT POINT! I never claimed to have invented cyberpunk fiction! That honor belongs primarily to William Gibson, whose 1984 novel, Neuromancer, was the real defining work of "The Movement." (At the time, Mike Swanwick argued that the movement writers should properly be termed neuromantics, since so much of what they were doing was clearly Imitation Neuromancer.)
...
Me? I've been told that my main contribution was inventing the stereotype of the punk hacker with a mohawk. That, and I named the beast, of course.
...
If you want to find out more about the etymology of cyberpunk -- and quite a few other things, too -- take a look at Bruce's web page. Alternatively, why not just scroll down and read the story itself?
[1] http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/cpunk.htm
It's not just any style though. All of the X-punk genres are alternative imaginings of the world. So the rebellion is against the current consensus reality.
Also, this is just what words do over time. Punk used to mean prostitute. Then it generalized to any ruffian. See also, words like: gay, awesome, nice, robot/bot, slave.
Also, this is just what words do over time. Punk used to mean prostitute. Then it generalized to any ruffian. See also, words like: gay, awesome, nice, robot/bot, slave.
it's a bit like "-ism", Modernism etc...
I don't see how you can have political confrontation without optimism, or at least a desire for change to circumstances that allows optimism.
You need optimism that things can be changed, not optimism that it will all work out in the end someway or another.
Science fiction has always been the literature of the possible, the imagined. And just as we can imagine horrors worse then things are now, a monstrous AI intelligence torturing the last surviving humans, boots forever stamping on faces in a world defined by doublethink, we can also imagine what things might look like if the world was better.
That isn't panglossian optimism that things will all work out, anymore than dystopias are a prediction of certain doom. It's a vision of a better world that is, perhaps, possible, and exploration of how such a world might be achieved.
That isn't panglossian optimism that things will all work out, anymore than dystopias are a prediction of certain doom. It's a vision of a better world that is, perhaps, possible, and exploration of how such a world might be achieved.
...mass transportation.
I seem to recognize 'Aqua Tram' with overhead catenary (over the water! With signalling lights even!).
I seem to recognize 'Aqua Tram' with overhead catenary (over the water! With signalling lights even!).
In the article they say:
> The “punk” in Solarpunk is about rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decolonialism and enthusiasm. It is about going in a different direction than the mainstream, which is increasingly going in a scary direction.
> The “punk” in Solarpunk is about rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decolonialism and enthusiasm. It is about going in a different direction than the mainstream, which is increasingly going in a scary direction.
> "should our cities be solarpunk or cyberpunk?"
That's such a frustrating false equivalence, and so is the idea that solarpunk is "punk" because its opposing cyberpunk. Cyberpunk was never aspirational, its a dystopian genre. There is aspirational near-future sci-fi, its just not cyberpunk). Its like asking if we would prefer to live in the post-apocalyptic wasteland from Mad Max or in the future utopia of Star Trek.
That's such a frustrating false equivalence, and so is the idea that solarpunk is "punk" because its opposing cyberpunk. Cyberpunk was never aspirational, its a dystopian genre. There is aspirational near-future sci-fi, its just not cyberpunk). Its like asking if we would prefer to live in the post-apocalyptic wasteland from Mad Max or in the future utopia of Star Trek.
I think the implied meaning of that question is that we are heading towards "cyberpunk" and we should not want to live in a dystopia.
Great links! Other related rabbit holes to go down might be Adam Curtis (kinda obvious) and Liu Cixin. Anyone else have any good living scifi authors indirectly or directly dealing with related ideas?
People always show a cyberpunk city at night. They are much less impressive/dystopian if you see them during the day.
Great poem. You might also like the Donald Fagen song "I.G.Y." - as usual I can't tell if he's being straight or sarcastic, but it's a vision you can hum along with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ueivjr3f8xg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ueivjr3f8xg
Also his album Kamakiriad:
I was born yesterday
When they brought my Kamakiri
When they handed me the keys
It's a steam-power 10
The frame is out of Glasgow
The tech is Balinese
It's not a freeway bullet
Or a bug with monster wheels
It's a total biosphere
The farm in the back
Is hydroponic
Good, fresh things
Every day of the year
I was born yesterday
When they brought my Kamakiri
When they handed me the keys
It's a steam-power 10
The frame is out of Glasgow
The tech is Balinese
It's not a freeway bullet
Or a bug with monster wheels
It's a total biosphere
The farm in the back
Is hydroponic
Good, fresh things
Every day of the year
I think he's portraying a childlike naivety since it's the perspective of him growing up in that album.
Funny, especially when contrasted with some S.D. work:
> "A world become one, of salads and sun" Only a fool would say that
Funny, especially when contrasted with some S.D. work:
> "A world become one, of salads and sun" Only a fool would say that
Although I like the images that this poem evoke in my mind (of deers and computers coexisting in a forest), I can't accept the "watched over" part. That seems to go contrary to the solarpunk vision of an end to hierarchy. Or maybe it is just irony and I didn't catch it.
You're not wrong. An ominous reading of the last line makes me think of the fetus fields from The Matrix.
I'm already not a user of Reddit but I clicked through just to check it out. Disappointed to watch it load 6.5mb of data (compressed) over the network to render what amounts to a list of text links and small image thumbnails.
At least the "old" Reddit subdomain loads much less, comparatively (1.4mb compressed). Use it instead: https://old.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/
At least the "old" Reddit subdomain loads much less, comparatively (1.4mb compressed). Use it instead: https://old.reddit.com/r/solarpunk/
I'd love to see some reasons why people downvoted my completely-ontopic comment about the heavy network usage of that Reddit link with a useful suggestion for a lower-usage alternative. If you felt my attempt to promote an energy-conscious approach on a discussion about that very subject was somehow not valuable, a text response would be more useful than suppressing my message.
The site is throwing a 503 error, but there is a good archive link here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210717211859/http://www.re-des...
Looks like a great manifesto. I'd also like to share my real world solarpunk project to those interested: https://community.twistedfields.com/t/a-closer-look-at-acorn...
Looks like a great manifesto. I'd also like to share my real world solarpunk project to those interested: https://community.twistedfields.com/t/a-closer-look-at-acorn...
Very exciting farm robot! I know weeding is a very labor intensive job on farms so I hope you can help eliminate that entire industry! What other tasks would this be useful for? I think most of farming for basic crops like grain is already very low-labor now, isn't it?
Vision-based weeding is a product you can buy from Deere now.[1]
[1] https://www.deere.com/en/our-company/news-and-announcements/...
[1] https://www.deere.com/en/our-company/news-and-announcements/...
Sure, but a) that's still spraying, albeit more targeted (still a win) b) I'd have to give money to John Deere.
There are a few variants on that. One kind just overdoses the weed with fertilizer. One zaps weeds with a laser. One just stomps on them. A small one from WalMart takes out weeds with a string trimmer.
Most of the successful systems are wide implements to be towed behind a tractor, not autonomous robots. Farmers already have tractors.
Most of the successful systems are wide implements to be towed behind a tractor, not autonomous robots. Farmers already have tractors.
omg I love that farming bot project! perfect concrete example after reading that manifesto :^) super inspired
Thank you so much! I wrote my own manifesto some years ago.
http://tlalexander.com/machine/
http://tlalexander.com/machine/
Any other projects (especially software or web related) you can recommend in this same spirit? Or maybe hackathons / conventions / irc / discord communities etc. for software engineers interested in getting involved?
I thought about this, but unfortunately I am so focused on my own work I often miss the work of others.
I used to enjoy my cyberpunk and other dystopias like the next guy. But to be honest, nowadays the world is bleak enough and even classic utopias like Star Trek grow stale or turn into dystopias. I like the fresh and friendly new vision of a livable future Solarpunk provides.
Utopias like solarpunk look nice but how does it make good stories?
It is hard to make stories without some form of conflict, and being a utopia, solarpunk is defined by the lack of it. I mean, if it is perfect, there is no way for improvement, it is not surprising that utopias go stale.
Dystopias are the natural result of pushing utopias too far. Once you have finished describing the wonderful world of joy, equality, optimism and forest-like cities, you will necessarily end up with the question "what happened to assholes?". Are they punished like criminals? Is their behavior "adjusted"? Did we engineer the asshole gene out? And the more you dig in, the more your utopia starts to look like a dystopia. As expected, these themes have been covered at length by many sci-fi authors.
It is hard to make stories without some form of conflict, and being a utopia, solarpunk is defined by the lack of it. I mean, if it is perfect, there is no way for improvement, it is not surprising that utopias go stale.
Dystopias are the natural result of pushing utopias too far. Once you have finished describing the wonderful world of joy, equality, optimism and forest-like cities, you will necessarily end up with the question "what happened to assholes?". Are they punished like criminals? Is their behavior "adjusted"? Did we engineer the asshole gene out? And the more you dig in, the more your utopia starts to look like a dystopia. As expected, these themes have been covered at length by many sci-fi authors.
> Utopias like solarpunk look nice but how does it make good stories?
Feel-good stories make for good stories, like a good love story or a fantasy book about a young protagonist overcoming obstacles. There's nothing wrong with escapism from time to time.
But indeed, there's not even a trace amount of punk in it.
Feel-good stories make for good stories, like a good love story or a fantasy book about a young protagonist overcoming obstacles. There's nothing wrong with escapism from time to time.
But indeed, there's not even a trace amount of punk in it.
Ach I dunno, did you read any of the Culture novels by Banks? His post scarcity human/machine setup the closest thing to a utopia I can think of, but there are still a good load of novels there :)
There are several culture books that feel a lot like dystopias - they are just less popular. Culture also cheats, with most of the popular ones using Contact with it’s fundamentally problematic and ‘messy’ interactions with non-Culture to create the necessary conflict for an interesting story.
Since most Utopia descriptions seem to imply that everyone is in the utopia, that is a lot harder.
The books that go into what it would be like actually living in a Culture society with other people/interpersonal relations get.. pretty gross pretty fast IMO.
Since most Utopia descriptions seem to imply that everyone is in the utopia, that is a lot harder.
The books that go into what it would be like actually living in a Culture society with other people/interpersonal relations get.. pretty gross pretty fast IMO.
Which ones? I’ve read the whole series multiple times and I can’t think of the society as a dystopia. Look to windward is probably my favourite.
Where do I start? The humans are essentially pets, kept around by the Minds mostly for nostalgic reasons and because it's a trivial effort for them. People love their pets, but don't allow their pets to make life-altering decisions.
All of the main characters are Minds or drones. None of the biologics ever get to influence events, they're just along for the ride.
The humans are controlled, both actively and passively. The Minds don't lower themselves to anything as crude as "carrots or sticks". Oh no, they prefer to use a far more subtle forms of "guidance", such as inventing an artificial language (Marain) that influences the way people think. This is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
The Culture's main opponents, peaceful or not, are all primarily-biologics that reject machine minds and associated technologies such as field manipulation. After reading the series, you start to get the inkling that perhaps they are right, and that the Culture made a mistake in allowing themselves to be ruled by computers.
The undercurrent, the persistent theme, in all of Banks' works is betrayal, often of the worst possible sort, the kind that leaves you breathless when fully unveiled in the final chapter. The Culture series has some sort of betrayal in just about every book. Often it is the machines betraying the humans in some way. The drone Skaffen-Amtiskaw in Use of Weapons, for example, was deceiving everyone to some degree, even the protagonist Zakalwe. Some of this deception feels unnecessary, taken to the n-th degree by the drone just because it can.
Similarly, the ship Grey Area is notable for being a "meat fucker" in that it abuses (or merely uses?) its godlike power to torture organics it judges as worthy of punishment. This is called out as unusual, but then in A Look to Windward the hub Mind casually strips Quilan's very soul out of his meat body so that he can experience death at the elevated level that only a Mind can. A worse horror is difficult to imagine.
Etc, etc...
All of the main characters are Minds or drones. None of the biologics ever get to influence events, they're just along for the ride.
The humans are controlled, both actively and passively. The Minds don't lower themselves to anything as crude as "carrots or sticks". Oh no, they prefer to use a far more subtle forms of "guidance", such as inventing an artificial language (Marain) that influences the way people think. This is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
The Culture's main opponents, peaceful or not, are all primarily-biologics that reject machine minds and associated technologies such as field manipulation. After reading the series, you start to get the inkling that perhaps they are right, and that the Culture made a mistake in allowing themselves to be ruled by computers.
The undercurrent, the persistent theme, in all of Banks' works is betrayal, often of the worst possible sort, the kind that leaves you breathless when fully unveiled in the final chapter. The Culture series has some sort of betrayal in just about every book. Often it is the machines betraying the humans in some way. The drone Skaffen-Amtiskaw in Use of Weapons, for example, was deceiving everyone to some degree, even the protagonist Zakalwe. Some of this deception feels unnecessary, taken to the n-th degree by the drone just because it can.
Similarly, the ship Grey Area is notable for being a "meat fucker" in that it abuses (or merely uses?) its godlike power to torture organics it judges as worthy of punishment. This is called out as unusual, but then in A Look to Windward the hub Mind casually strips Quilan's very soul out of his meat body so that he can experience death at the elevated level that only a Mind can. A worse horror is difficult to imagine.
Etc, etc...
>> All of the main characters are Minds or drones. None of the biologics ever get to influence events, they're just along for the ride.
Woa. Hold it right there. It's the other way around. Most of the main characters are flesh people. See The Player of Games, Use of Weapons, Consider Phlebas (the main characterr are not from the Culture but are made of meat), Feersum Endjin, Walking on Glass... those are the ones I remember from the top of my head (it's been a while). The two books I can think of with prominent Mind characters are Excession and ... the one with the guil-tripping Mind? Is that Look to Windward? Anyway I think I just listed half of the Culture books (I really need to go back and read everything again... after I've re-read all of Discworld first...).
[Continuing to read your comment- it seems we have read the same books in very different ways. The mark of good literature, I believe.]
Woa. Hold it right there. It's the other way around. Most of the main characters are flesh people. See The Player of Games, Use of Weapons, Consider Phlebas (the main characterr are not from the Culture but are made of meat), Feersum Endjin, Walking on Glass... those are the ones I remember from the top of my head (it's been a while). The two books I can think of with prominent Mind characters are Excession and ... the one with the guil-tripping Mind? Is that Look to Windward? Anyway I think I just listed half of the Culture books (I really need to go back and read everything again... after I've re-read all of Discworld first...).
[Continuing to read your comment- it seems we have read the same books in very different ways. The mark of good literature, I believe.]
In Player of Games, the protagonist is a Culture human, but has no control over and no idea what will happen at the end (actually, he is deceived about the nature of his visit), which is all orchestrated by Minds - "his" drone being their prolonged hand, playing a servant until it isn't.
In Consider Phlebas, the main character is defeated by a Mind which then mockingly takes his name.
Read Excession to see the full extent of the Minds' control over Culture - literally nothing is decided by humans, they're played around with.
However, it seems to be possible to live out a full life without any major interference, in total comfort and experiencing unimaginable things. IMHO it's a good tradeoff, one just has to stay far away from Contact and especially Special Circumstances.
In Consider Phlebas, the main character is defeated by a Mind which then mockingly takes his name.
Read Excession to see the full extent of the Minds' control over Culture - literally nothing is decided by humans, they're played around with.
However, it seems to be possible to live out a full life without any major interference, in total comfort and experiencing unimaginable things. IMHO it's a good tradeoff, one just has to stay far away from Contact and especially Special Circumstances.
I've read Excession - that was not the impression I got. See my sibling comment linking to Iain M. Banks' own summary of the Culture. My reading is that he absolutely did not mean for humans to be exploited, subservient, played around with, treated as pets or anything of the sort. The impression I got from the books you quote is that humans and machines treat each other as equals and neither has any kind of societal power above the other, in theory or in practice, inside the Culture. And I may forget the details of most other Culture books but this is the general impression I got from reading them, also.
In fact, in my view anyway, this harmonious and equitable co-existence of humans and machines is a central part of the Culture's bright-eyed techno-utopianism. The Culture is a utopia partly because humans and machines have managed, together, to create a society where both can exist as equals. The humans did not treat the machines as slaves and the machines did not treat the humans as inferior. Optimist, Roddenberrian sci-fi in its finest.
In fact, in my view anyway, this harmonious and equitable co-existence of humans and machines is a central part of the Culture's bright-eyed techno-utopianism. The Culture is a utopia partly because humans and machines have managed, together, to create a society where both can exist as equals. The humans did not treat the machines as slaves and the machines did not treat the humans as inferior. Optimist, Roddenberrian sci-fi in its finest.
In Excession, on multiple occassions, the Minds literally say that humans are inferior and ultimately don't matter; and there isn't a single human in the loop anywhere, even in dealing with the most important event in history of the Culture, everything is decided by the Minds. Even killing a human accidentaly in the crossfire of a secret scheme (Gestra) is alright.
Again though, the situations described are the most extreme and special, and ordinary lives are lived out in bliss and peaceful coexistence. I don't view the Minds as dystopian control-freaks, I'd be happy to let them be in charge of the universe while living out a life within the utopia they create; I can't imagine humans creating something better - most probably it'd be much worse, more like the Klingon Empire (or even the Terran Empire, maybe) than the Culture or United Federation of Planets.
Again though, the situations described are the most extreme and special, and ordinary lives are lived out in bliss and peaceful coexistence. I don't view the Minds as dystopian control-freaks, I'd be happy to let them be in charge of the universe while living out a life within the utopia they create; I can't imagine humans creating something better - most probably it'd be much worse, more like the Klingon Empire (or even the Terran Empire, maybe) than the Culture or United Federation of Planets.
The world is viewed primarily through the eyes of human protagonists, but this is to anchor the reader in something familiar. The humans are never in charge. The Minds drive the plots forward, the Minds decide things, and it is the Minds that make decisions that have a material outcome. The humans are pawns at best, and often mere observers or bystanders.
This is an idiosyncratic reading that is at odds with Iain M. Banks' own description of the relation between humans and AI in the Culture:
It is, of course, entirely possible that real AIs will refuse to have anything to do with their human creators (or rather, perhaps, the human creators of their non-human creators), but assuming that they do - and the design of their software may be amenable to optimization in this regard - I would argue that it is quite possible they would agree to help further the aims of their source civilisation (a contention we'll return to shortly). At this point, regardless of whatever alterations humanity might impose on itself through genetic manipulation, humanity would no longer be a one-sentience-type species. The future of our species would affect, be affected by and coexist with the future of the AI life-forms we create.
The Culture reached this phase at around the same time as it began to inhabit space. Its AIs cooperate with the humans of the civilisation; at first the struggle is simply to survive and thrive in space; later - when the technology required to do so has become mundane - the task becomes less physical, more metaphysical, and the aims of civilisation moral rather than material.
Briefly, nothing and nobody in the Culture is exploited. It is essentially an automated civilisation in its manufacturing processes, with human labour restricted to something indistinguishable from play, or a hobby.
No machine is exploited, either; the idea here being that any job can be automated in such a way as to ensure that it can be done by a machine well below the level of potential consciousness; what to us would be a stunningly sophisticated computer running a factory (for example) would be looked on by the Culture's AIs as a glorified calculator, and no more exploited than an insect is exploited when it pollinates a fruit tree a human later eats a fruit from.
http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
It is, of course, entirely possible that real AIs will refuse to have anything to do with their human creators (or rather, perhaps, the human creators of their non-human creators), but assuming that they do - and the design of their software may be amenable to optimization in this regard - I would argue that it is quite possible they would agree to help further the aims of their source civilisation (a contention we'll return to shortly). At this point, regardless of whatever alterations humanity might impose on itself through genetic manipulation, humanity would no longer be a one-sentience-type species. The future of our species would affect, be affected by and coexist with the future of the AI life-forms we create.
The Culture reached this phase at around the same time as it began to inhabit space. Its AIs cooperate with the humans of the civilisation; at first the struggle is simply to survive and thrive in space; later - when the technology required to do so has become mundane - the task becomes less physical, more metaphysical, and the aims of civilisation moral rather than material.
Briefly, nothing and nobody in the Culture is exploited. It is essentially an automated civilisation in its manufacturing processes, with human labour restricted to something indistinguishable from play, or a hobby.
No machine is exploited, either; the idea here being that any job can be automated in such a way as to ensure that it can be done by a machine well below the level of potential consciousness; what to us would be a stunningly sophisticated computer running a factory (for example) would be looked on by the Culture's AIs as a glorified calculator, and no more exploited than an insect is exploited when it pollinates a fruit tree a human later eats a fruit from.
http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm
You basically surmised the outlook on Culture of one of the series' characters, Horza in Consider Phlebas.
It's the first novel in the series.
It's the first novel in the series.
I actually took to this view after reading one of Banks' non-culture novels, The Wasp Factory. The ending of that book simply floored me. The betrayal! It was just... unspeakable, an almost Lovecraftian horror that shook my very soul. Afterwards I re-read his Culture novels and saw them in a new light.
PS: Banks is by far my favourite author, and I mourn his death greatly.
PS: Banks is by far my favourite author, and I mourn his death greatly.
Well sure. Banks himself said that he would definitely want to live in the culture though, I don’t see it quite as dark either :)
Very well taken care of pets, to be sure. Very happy pets, but pets nonetheless.
A good place to start for such stories is in the contrast between solarpunk and cyberpunk. They feel like natural polar opposites.
Have the world be partially solarpunk and partially cyberpunk. Or maybe fully cyberpunk with a growing movement towards something much more hopeful.
Forward 20-50 years. Environmental problems are worse than ever. Big chunks of society are still stuck in the old ways. But big chunks have found lifestyles and technology that have minimal negative impact on the environment. But perhaps there are still tradeoffs. Perhaps there's conflict between those that have power thanks to the old ways and those that promote the new ways.
Have the world be partially solarpunk and partially cyberpunk. Or maybe fully cyberpunk with a growing movement towards something much more hopeful.
Forward 20-50 years. Environmental problems are worse than ever. Big chunks of society are still stuck in the old ways. But big chunks have found lifestyles and technology that have minimal negative impact on the environment. But perhaps there are still tradeoffs. Perhaps there's conflict between those that have power thanks to the old ways and those that promote the new ways.
Love it! Are there works based on this idea?
The Culture series by Iain M Banks. The Culture is a pan-galactic post-scarcity Type I/II civilization of transhumans. The novels often revolve around the dealings with other civilizations of many different tech levels (including medieval and steam age).
One that comes to mind is Cory Doctorow's Walkaway[1]
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkaway_(Doctorow_novel)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkaway_(Doctorow_novel)
One example is the most classic solarpunk novel, the Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin. It deals with the tension between a capitalist society (not really cyberpunk) and a anarcho socialist outer planet colony on the corresponding moon. It doesn't paint the alternative society as a perfect utopia. It has its strengths and weaknesses. And it deals a lot with the cultural chock of someone who travels between. It doesn't deal that much with environmental issues though.
And I feel like Cory Doctorow's walkaway is a lot like this. I bought it but I haven't gotten into it. His writing style can sometimes throw me off a bit.
And I feel like Cory Doctorow's walkaway is a lot like this. I bought it but I haven't gotten into it. His writing style can sometimes throw me off a bit.
I don't see anything in the solarpunk manifesto that says we magically eliminate all interpersonal conflict.
>17. Solarpunk is the idea of humanity achieving a social evolution that embraces not just mere tolerance, but a more expansive compassion and acceptance.
What kind of interpersonal conflict remains after that, besides play fighting (aka sport)?
What kind of interpersonal conflict remains after that, besides play fighting (aka sport)?
Jealousy, unrequited love, grief for those who passed away...? Just what immediately popped into my head; I'm sure there's more.
I dunno, reading that I’m more inclined to prepare for cyberpunk than to magically assume we can fix millions of years of evolution.
>Utopias like solarpunk look nice but how does it make good stories
Kim Stanley Robinson (better known for the 'Red Mars' trilogy) wrote in the 1980s the Three Californias trilogy about three possible futures for California in the 21st century, one dystopian, one neutral, and one utopian. The utopian one (basically "solarpunk" although the term didn't exist then) was, predictably, the least interesting as a story.
Kim Stanley Robinson (better known for the 'Red Mars' trilogy) wrote in the 1980s the Three Californias trilogy about three possible futures for California in the 21st century, one dystopian, one neutral, and one utopian. The utopian one (basically "solarpunk" although the term didn't exist then) was, predictably, the least interesting as a story.
> It is hard to make stories without some form of conflict
Internal conflict works. Overcoming primitive instincts. Also natural disasters.
Internal conflict works. Overcoming primitive instincts. Also natural disasters.
Check Peter F. Hamilton's books perhaps, at least the Commonwealth sagas. They seem to be somewhat like this (although with added alien dangers). Also his Night's Dawn trilogy has an offshoot of humanity which is pretty solarpunkish.
You can ask an AI and get some amazing stories out as a result (I've tried and it works). That also seems like a fairly Solarpunk solution to the problem.
Our doom is going to be far less entertaining than a good Gibson novel I suspect. Maybe a good time to teach the kids krav and how to wire a solar panel to a car battery eh. :/
Let me tell you about the 70ies and 80ies.
yes... go on?
First we were all gonna die a horrible death in a nuclear armageddon. When that didn't happen, all forests would die due to acid rain and we would all suffocate. When that didn't happen the hole in the ozon layer was discovered and we would all die of skin cancer.
I must have forgotten some.
I must have forgotten some.
You understand that a huge amount of work and effort went into handling those problems, right? Like, they weren’t not problems, we just actually did something about them...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Helsinki_Protocol_on_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Helsinki_Protocol_on_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
Not understanding that is at the core of the teachings of the alt-right thought leaders. It's actually formalised under the concept of "The Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters"[0] by the Dilbert's creator, who himself is very active in these politics, which is ironic because the law actually recognises the existence of the diverted threats but the application of the law on the current dangers is preached as "relax, nothing will happen no action needed".
You can add the Covid-19 to the list when all this is over. They will say, "We were all gonna die but only 4 million people died. It was yet another fear-mongering by INSERT_YOUR_FAVORITE_BOOGYMAN". The 4 million number to be updated, when it was at 50K the argument was "They say it's extremely dangerous but the flu actually killed more people".
It's bizarre. It's almost like a form of douchebaggery where you put all your chips on the idea that somehow it will be fixed by experts and simultaneously demand that the solution that the experts propose should not involve you in any way and if that solution alters your current or future way of life, the solution proposal will result in harassment to its creator.
[0]: https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/01/22/adams-law-of-slow-...
You can add the Covid-19 to the list when all this is over. They will say, "We were all gonna die but only 4 million people died. It was yet another fear-mongering by INSERT_YOUR_FAVORITE_BOOGYMAN". The 4 million number to be updated, when it was at 50K the argument was "They say it's extremely dangerous but the flu actually killed more people".
It's bizarre. It's almost like a form of douchebaggery where you put all your chips on the idea that somehow it will be fixed by experts and simultaneously demand that the solution that the experts propose should not involve you in any way and if that solution alters your current or future way of life, the solution proposal will result in harassment to its creator.
[0]: https://www.scottadamssays.com/2015/01/22/adams-law-of-slow-...
I never said or meant such a thing. OP stated that our future was bleak. I offered to tell tales from 70ies and 80ies. Whatever you are projecting is yours.
Can you elaborate on what you say then please? Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to you directly but to the general case of the narrative I described. My apologies if it felt like personal attack.
Those... are all problems that would have happened if we didn't change our behavior. And luckily we did. Well, except the forests are still being destroyed.
What's happening in the Amazon is an obscene travesty, but overall global forest cover has been increasing for about a century. The 80s and 90s saw the ozone hole and acid rain problems addressed and ultimately put on the way to being righted.
Fire frequency and intensity in the US are a function of warming and really stupid forest management, with density, deadwood, water table policies, and other localized aspects being used wantonly as political tokens.
We need to do so much better. We also need to be much more competent at scale. It's possible. It's necessary. There are too many big real problems for the current state of disarray to last, one way or another.
Fire frequency and intensity in the US are a function of warming and really stupid forest management, with density, deadwood, water table policies, and other localized aspects being used wantonly as political tokens.
We need to do so much better. We also need to be much more competent at scale. It's possible. It's necessary. There are too many big real problems for the current state of disarray to last, one way or another.
>overall global forest cover has been increasing for about a century.
Can you cite a source for that claim? WRI's Global Forest Review data across the last 20 years shows annual primary losses between 2 and 6 million hectares with an upwards trend, and overall loss in the last 20 years sitting at 411 million hectares.
https://research.wri.org/gfr/global-forest-review https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest...
I also found Yale talking about data and sources being less-than-ideal in quality but both the major studies are in broad agreement about the decline in forest cover globally: https://e360.yale.edu/features/conflicting-data-how-fast-is-...
In terms of the longer view: "The turn of the 20th century is when global forest loss reached the halfway point: half of total forest loss occurred from 8,000BC to 1900; the other half occurred in the last century alone."
https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
Can you cite a source for that claim? WRI's Global Forest Review data across the last 20 years shows annual primary losses between 2 and 6 million hectares with an upwards trend, and overall loss in the last 20 years sitting at 411 million hectares.
https://research.wri.org/gfr/global-forest-review https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest...
I also found Yale talking about data and sources being less-than-ideal in quality but both the major studies are in broad agreement about the decline in forest cover globally: https://e360.yale.edu/features/conflicting-data-how-fast-is-...
In terms of the longer view: "The turn of the 20th century is when global forest loss reached the halfway point: half of total forest loss occurred from 8,000BC to 1900; the other half occurred in the last century alone."
https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation
I remember being surprised to read about "global greening" - here are some links about it. I don't know if it's such an optimistic trend as presented though, and what it means in the context of large-scale deforestation that you mentioned.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
Global greening is happening faster than climate change, and it’s a good thing - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/global-greening-is-ha...
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...
Global greening is happening faster than climate change, and it’s a good thing - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/global-greening-is-ha...
Greening mitigates the impact of climate change to a point, but that we're seeing it so strongly take effect is alarming because it indicates how strong the underlying shifts are, and there comes a point that it ceases to mitigate the negative effects. As the equator becomes increasingly desertified polar regions shift from barren icescapes to being able to support more plant life. Also as photosynthesis increases due to greater CO2 in the atmosphere so too does plant respiration, where carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere overnight. One way to look at it - The entire plant biomass of the earth removes about as much carbon from the atmosphere each year as China alone emits in that same year. So the capacity here to mitigate climate change via global greening is quite limited.
Anything that acts as a damping mechanism on the impacts of climate change has to be taken as a good thing though - Our biggest addressable existential threat is the rate of change, and slowing that via any means is a good thing.
IMO this piece (similar to your link, more recent) summarises well: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates...
Anything that acts as a damping mechanism on the impacts of climate change has to be taken as a good thing though - Our biggest addressable existential threat is the rate of change, and slowing that via any means is a good thing.
IMO this piece (similar to your link, more recent) summarises well: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates...
We never changed our behavior, we simply outsourced it to East Asia, where there are few meaningful environmental regulations, and an even greater cost to human rights.
IMHO we made the situation much worse. You just don’t see it because the average American or European hasn’t been to mainland China where the smog is so thick you can’t see down a city block and the rivers and waterways so polluted they change color. But unfortunately the ignorant will brag about how we have done something to help with environmentally conscious vehicles or activities while doing little to help solve the actual problems.
IMHO we made the situation much worse. You just don’t see it because the average American or European hasn’t been to mainland China where the smog is so thick you can’t see down a city block and the rivers and waterways so polluted they change color. But unfortunately the ignorant will brag about how we have done something to help with environmentally conscious vehicles or activities while doing little to help solve the actual problems.
I've also had an older dermatologist tell me that the ozone layer ain't what it used to be.
We still have more nukes than ever, plenty to destroy all major metropolitan centers, and exterminate 1-2 billion people. We still have corrupt and war hungry people in power (and a sense that they can meddle everywhere without repurcursions), and so on.
So, we didn't exactly change anything on that front.
We still have worse than ever pollution, increased industrial production, several times increased fossil fuel burning, etc. So much for doing something for acid rain then. What happened was just that industry moved to China and elsewhere, so we exported the problem from where 12% of the global population lives (US and Europe) to where 40% lives.
And so on...
So, we didn't exactly change anything on that front.
We still have worse than ever pollution, increased industrial production, several times increased fossil fuel burning, etc. So much for doing something for acid rain then. What happened was just that industry moved to China and elsewhere, so we exported the problem from where 12% of the global population lives (US and Europe) to where 40% lives.
And so on...
The famous picture of a dying forest to drive that narrative down everybody's throat was a picture of ... a forest dying of something else.
I don’t believe that claim at all.
I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior). I suppose I could be misinformed but I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs (we changed our behavior)? I know less about acid rain. We are continuing to destroy forests.
Acid rain was the result of air pollution containing nitrogen and sulfur oxides, primarily from industrial sources, but also from vehicles. Strict emissions controls have largely solved this problem in developed countries.
> I mean, obviously nuclear war was averted because we ended the cold war (we changed our behavior).
I had a very spirited argument the other day about whether a unipolar world is actually more stable than a multipolar world, or not. The threat of nuclear war is ever-present, even if it is less serious now than it was in the 60s. I’m not sure where you get “obviously” in this claim.
> I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs
The alternative explanation (which I’m sure you will be able to find a “debunking” of somewhere) is that ozone is regenerated very quickly, and the “hole” (it really was never more than a “thin spot”) in the Antarctic has improved because the South Pole is exposed to just a little more solar energy now. CFCs probably do make some difference, but they are very heavy molecules and would not accumulate much in the upper atmosphere:
https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518
(Note: That article has some data that could support this theory, but it does not reach the same conclusion. You are nevertheless encouraged to think for yourself.)
I had a very spirited argument the other day about whether a unipolar world is actually more stable than a multipolar world, or not. The threat of nuclear war is ever-present, even if it is less serious now than it was in the 60s. I’m not sure where you get “obviously” in this claim.
> I believe the hole in the ozone layer was fixed by banning CFCs
The alternative explanation (which I’m sure you will be able to find a “debunking” of somewhere) is that ozone is regenerated very quickly, and the “hole” (it really was never more than a “thin spot”) in the Antarctic has improved because the South Pole is exposed to just a little more solar energy now. CFCs probably do make some difference, but they are very heavy molecules and would not accumulate much in the upper atmosphere:
https://news.mit.edu/2021/cfc-atmosphere-ozone-0518
(Note: That article has some data that could support this theory, but it does not reach the same conclusion. You are nevertheless encouraged to think for yourself.)
We were also all going to freeze in the "New Ice Age".
Where normally this gets brought up as some reason we shouldn't trust climate science, this is actually a good example of how media sensationalizes shaky science to get people riled up. (The cooling theory, at its height of popularity, coexisted with a larger body of research predicting warming. I.e. it wasn't well supported.)
The problem is this is based on "it's different this time", which doesn't preclude hearing the same kind of excuses in the future: "how early 21st century climate change stories was mostly sensionalization by the media, and real scientists differed (what with "global weirding")" and so on.
A recent survey in New Zealand found that 7% of people believed the worst case credible predicted sea level rise by 2100 is 15 meters or more, which is wrong. More people underestimated it too. But it shows that media sensationalism is probably leading people to ridiculous beliefs about climate change too.
People saying climate change is a disaster, crisis, catastrophe, etc. use those words because they haven't got a clue what's going to happen and are just hyped up on fear. The media sensationalizes it out of proportion while the solid science is relatively boring. There's also media sensationalizing it as a false bogeyman which encourages denialism. But either way, most people are just tools of the media because it's so much easier and more entertaining than reading dry science papers.
People saying climate change is a disaster, crisis, catastrophe, etc. use those words because they haven't got a clue what's going to happen and are just hyped up on fear. The media sensationalizes it out of proportion while the solid science is relatively boring. There's also media sensationalizing it as a false bogeyman which encourages denialism. But either way, most people are just tools of the media because it's so much easier and more entertaining than reading dry science papers.
> found that 7% of people believed the worst case credible predicted sea level rise by 2100 is 15 meters or more, which is wrong
7%? Not very many. I would imagine much of it is random / thoughtless guessing, as opposed to someone strongly believing it to be true.
edit: presuming it is the survey from this paper, they didn't offer respondents an "I don't know" option. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
7%? Not very many. I would imagine much of it is random / thoughtless guessing, as opposed to someone strongly believing it to be true.
edit: presuming it is the survey from this paper, they didn't offer respondents an "I don't know" option. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Yep, it might be that. But at the same time, who would even consider sea level might rise if not for the media talking about climate change? Surely, for many of them, the general idea came from sensationalization.
That brings back memories!
The Clash (actual British punk rock)- London calling:
"The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning I live by the river"
The Clash (actual British punk rock)- London calling:
"The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
'Cause London is drowning I live by the river"
Thats such an excellent succinct counterpoint to all the doomer nihilism we tend to slip into on HN. I feel like this should be on some kind of open source tshirt or commemorative plate.
This is interesting. I’ve personally only ever seen the word “solarpunk” here on HN and on sites linked to on here. I’m kind of curious as to how big this community is.
For example, I learned about steampunk when I asked about why somebody had copper gears on their hat and somebody explained it to me. I learned about cyberpunk from, well, growing up in the 90s. They both immediately evoke specific aesthetics unique to them, and it’s not hard to think of seminal movies/models/novels/music for each one.
I do not have this association with solarpunk.
I wasn’t unable to picture the solarpunk aesthetics based off the list of bullet points aside from Miyazaki with a lot of bikes, which I doubt is the whole thing.
What are some examples of solarpunk art? Who are some solarpunk evangelists? Does this actually exist outside of a phrase used by posters on Hacker News?
Edit: I have looked further into this and it’s just… odd.
I don’t mean to sound ridiculous but I’m still kind of confused about as to whether this is an actual movement or a very small handful of people trying to astroturf some anime-techno-utopia philosophy (that seems to explicitly seems to forbid any criticism of tech) while using the language of folks that have actually created art and formed good-faith communities over decades.
It kind of reads like something a bunch of tech CEOs and VCs cooked up as a “philosophy” in which they’re the ultimate saviors and criticizing tech is the ultimate sin.
I mean, even if this is some goofy Elon-Musk-Stoned-Shouting-At-Everyone nonsense, whoever decided to pursue this as an aesthetic and a movement didn’t bother to come up with anything beyond Miyazaki? Couldn’t even pick out what a solarpunk hat or jacket or computer would look like before shipping this “ideology” off to the presses?
For example, I learned about steampunk when I asked about why somebody had copper gears on their hat and somebody explained it to me. I learned about cyberpunk from, well, growing up in the 90s. They both immediately evoke specific aesthetics unique to them, and it’s not hard to think of seminal movies/models/novels/music for each one.
I do not have this association with solarpunk.
I wasn’t unable to picture the solarpunk aesthetics based off the list of bullet points aside from Miyazaki with a lot of bikes, which I doubt is the whole thing.
What are some examples of solarpunk art? Who are some solarpunk evangelists? Does this actually exist outside of a phrase used by posters on Hacker News?
Edit: I have looked further into this and it’s just… odd.
I don’t mean to sound ridiculous but I’m still kind of confused about as to whether this is an actual movement or a very small handful of people trying to astroturf some anime-techno-utopia philosophy (that seems to explicitly seems to forbid any criticism of tech) while using the language of folks that have actually created art and formed good-faith communities over decades.
It kind of reads like something a bunch of tech CEOs and VCs cooked up as a “philosophy” in which they’re the ultimate saviors and criticizing tech is the ultimate sin.
I mean, even if this is some goofy Elon-Musk-Stoned-Shouting-At-Everyone nonsense, whoever decided to pursue this as an aesthetic and a movement didn’t bother to come up with anything beyond Miyazaki? Couldn’t even pick out what a solarpunk hat or jacket or computer would look like before shipping this “ideology” off to the presses?
There was (is?) a whole Mastodon instance[0] focused around solarpunk, and that sentiment is shared by quite a few others. It's probably still kinda niche, but on Mastodon the solarpunk ethos seems pretty prevalent to me.
[0] https://sunbeam.city/about
[0] https://sunbeam.city/about
I read it for the first time an hour ago from a different article.
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/drawing-pictures-of-cities
Presumably that article is why the OP showed up on HN
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/drawing-pictures-of-cities
Presumably that article is why the OP showed up on HN
Reading this article, there are quite a few examples of "buildings with trees" in Germany, e.g.
* the "Baumhaus" (tree-house) in Darmstadt [1], built 1970 (!). The linked article talks about some of the difficulties you get when roots grow through the roof, and how to avoid that.
* the "1000 green roofs" programme in Berlin [2], one particular example [3]
* there's a couple of Hundertwasserhaus with a unique architecture, and those usually also have green roofs.
On top of that, you can find points (3) walkable streets, (4) varied architecture and (5) shade in many many towns and cities in Europe. In Germany, this has a long tradition; the "Dorflinde" ("village linden tree") is the historic center of many villages.
[1] https://biotope-city.net/en/pioneer-ot-hoffmann/
[2] https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/natur-und-gruen/stadtgruen/sta...
[3] https://www.landscaper-berlin.de/dach-holzbau/flachdach/dach...
* the "Baumhaus" (tree-house) in Darmstadt [1], built 1970 (!). The linked article talks about some of the difficulties you get when roots grow through the roof, and how to avoid that.
* the "1000 green roofs" programme in Berlin [2], one particular example [3]
* there's a couple of Hundertwasserhaus with a unique architecture, and those usually also have green roofs.
On top of that, you can find points (3) walkable streets, (4) varied architecture and (5) shade in many many towns and cities in Europe. In Germany, this has a long tradition; the "Dorflinde" ("village linden tree") is the historic center of many villages.
[1] https://biotope-city.net/en/pioneer-ot-hoffmann/
[2] https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/natur-und-gruen/stadtgruen/sta...
[3] https://www.landscaper-berlin.de/dach-holzbau/flachdach/dach...
Thanks for posting this article. Must have been coincidence or indirection, because I came from a german twitter thread.
https://twitter.com/kaenkazui/status/1415637494717112325?s=2...
Thanks! These are some very specific notes about how cities can be more appealing. I’m still kinda confused about what “solarpunk” is aside from some loosely worded articles with anime screenshots.
> whether this is an actual movement or a very small handful of people trying to astroturf some anime-techno-utopia philosophy
Isn’t that how literally every movement starts? Maybe we’re seeing the birth of a movement.
Isn’t that how literally every movement starts? Maybe we’re seeing the birth of a movement.
>Instead of embracing retrofuturism, solarpunk looks completely to the future
This to me is an interesting point I'm skeptical about. In recent times, among some people like Nicholas Taleb and a few others there has been an appreciation for the culture of the Levant or Mediterranean that's about the commercial or city-state and pluralistic attitude of that historical region, some people even trying to start charter city movements, and so on.
It feels like Solarpunk draws heavily from that aesthetic, with its pluralism, mixture of science, diversity and faith and maritime and mercantile culture with some more focus on ecology and technology on top.
That to me very much is a form of retro-futurism, albeit drawing from a cultural background most people will be slightly less familiar with. The place of humans in Solarpunk seems very traditional, in harmony with nature, in human-scale cities, often including artisanal designs with a tech twist, but it very much does not seem future-facing. Even the punk label I think is questionable because very little about it seems transgressive or disruptive.
Solarpunk to me very much has the same sort of parochial, escapist feel of pastoral American utopianism, fleeing back to nature, except that it comes without the Christian or colonial undertones and is explicitly diverse.
This to me is an interesting point I'm skeptical about. In recent times, among some people like Nicholas Taleb and a few others there has been an appreciation for the culture of the Levant or Mediterranean that's about the commercial or city-state and pluralistic attitude of that historical region, some people even trying to start charter city movements, and so on.
It feels like Solarpunk draws heavily from that aesthetic, with its pluralism, mixture of science, diversity and faith and maritime and mercantile culture with some more focus on ecology and technology on top.
That to me very much is a form of retro-futurism, albeit drawing from a cultural background most people will be slightly less familiar with. The place of humans in Solarpunk seems very traditional, in harmony with nature, in human-scale cities, often including artisanal designs with a tech twist, but it very much does not seem future-facing. Even the punk label I think is questionable because very little about it seems transgressive or disruptive.
Solarpunk to me very much has the same sort of parochial, escapist feel of pastoral American utopianism, fleeing back to nature, except that it comes without the Christian or colonial undertones and is explicitly diverse.
1800s age-of-sail/frontier living (but with more bicycles)
About 2/3 of the world population has to go for that.
We're in good shape on energy and in good shape on food. Both can come from a wide variety of sources and locations. The long term sustainability problems are further out, running out of copper, cobalt, etc. Recycling will get some of it, but not all of it, back.
About 2/3 of the world population has to go for that.
We're in good shape on energy and in good shape on food. Both can come from a wide variety of sources and locations. The long term sustainability problems are further out, running out of copper, cobalt, etc. Recycling will get some of it, but not all of it, back.
That's about the aesthetics for the art/visions. Not a goal how the world has to look.
Right. Like the Chobani commercial.[1]
[1] https://youtu.be/MS-sJQkr0H4
[1] https://youtu.be/MS-sJQkr0H4
The production company posted an extended cut on twitter: https://twitter.com/thelinestudio/status/1413543900862627842
Looks like corporate greenwashing.
It actually has some nice aspects. The windmill zeppelins are unlikely to work, but the drones and harvest machine hint to some (advanced) mechanization in producing crops, so no unrealistic "we do everything by hand, even when we can only support like 10% of the population this way".
It actually has some nice aspects. The windmill zeppelins are unlikely to work, but the drones and harvest machine hint to some (advanced) mechanization in producing crops, so no unrealistic "we do everything by hand, even when we can only support like 10% of the population this way".
I kept seeing heavy-looking flying drones with nondescript propulsion method and thinking how much energy it takes keeping them hovering in the air.
Imagining some serious improvement in battery capacity or drone propulsion tech in the next 20 years does not seem super far fetched, and this video is probably looking more at 100 year span.
Regardless of the actual costs, it's still a waste of energy to keep something hovering in the air when it can be moved over land as well: keeping something floating in the air will always require active power, whereas keeping it on the ground can be done passively (a spring/suspension system).
If we're serious about surviving the next 100 years, frivolous energy expenditure is not the way to go.
If we're serious about surviving the next 100 years, frivolous energy expenditure is not the way to go.
By the time we harness 100% of our energy from the sun there will be little reason not to use it. It’ll just be wasted otherwise.
The gravity will remain the same in 100 years span so hauling agricultural loads with a drone will require same (rather enormous) energy expense. Since the video shows some tiny-ass wind turbines on generation side this is rather doubtful.
(I do realize that am nitpicking on a marketing video here)
(I do realize that am nitpicking on a marketing video here)
(I do realize that am nitpicking on a marketing video here)
Yes, but it's a generic problem with "green" advertising.
Sierra Club image of wind farm.[1]
Real world wind farm.[2]
Wind and solar started beating Big Oil when they became Big Wind and Big Solar.
[1] https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/st...
[2] https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/aerial-view-wind-turbines-sp...
Yes, but it's a generic problem with "green" advertising.
Sierra Club image of wind farm.[1]
Real world wind farm.[2]
Wind and solar started beating Big Oil when they became Big Wind and Big Solar.
[1] https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/st...
[2] https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/aerial-view-wind-turbines-sp...
This is mostly because we don’t have small wind farms everywhere. We have one really huge one in a central location.
I feel like solarpunk leans more towards decentralization.
I feel like solarpunk leans more towards decentralization.
It's an issue with practicality: a smaller wind turbine requires a similar amount of maintenance as a huge one, while the latter converts the energy more efficiently due to greater rotor span.
Then you are not going to build a sole turbine† in a middle of nowhere, because it requires a transformer /DC inverter and a connection to grid. These things are costly and best amortized over large farms. Same goes for maintenance: there's periodic maintenance for various systems and much of the cost is getting specialists and gear there and back.
(†) There are cases when you'd use turbines of grid, like with remote mines/outposts but these are rather special.
Then you are not going to build a sole turbine† in a middle of nowhere, because it requires a transformer /DC inverter and a connection to grid. These things are costly and best amortized over large farms. Same goes for maintenance: there's periodic maintenance for various systems and much of the cost is getting specialists and gear there and back.
(†) There are cases when you'd use turbines of grid, like with remote mines/outposts but these are rather special.
It seems pretty clear to me that high labor farming can use land area and water more efficiently per unit of food produced.
Mechanization of agriculture has generally increased yields per unit area. By a lot.
This kind of futurism is solving the problems people thought would be important a few decades back - overpopulation, insufficient food supply, declining energy sources, and nuclear war. Instead, we have population leveling off and declining in many areas, obesity, cheap solar and wind, and no use of nuclear weapons for 75 years. But we have a big problem with climate change, parliamentary democracy keeps deadlocking, and better communications led to each group of nuts finding soulmates and becoming a faction.
This kind of futurism is solving the problems people thought would be important a few decades back - overpopulation, insufficient food supply, declining energy sources, and nuclear war. Instead, we have population leveling off and declining in many areas, obesity, cheap solar and wind, and no use of nuclear weapons for 75 years. But we have a big problem with climate change, parliamentary democracy keeps deadlocking, and better communications led to each group of nuts finding soulmates and becoming a faction.
Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that irrigation, fertization and genetic improvements are what increased yields per unit area. All mechanization does is reduce labor costs. I would love to know what exactly you think mechanization itself does to improve yields.
Just as an example, here's a video of a field full of rocks in New England being prepped for planting.[1]
Farming is not just planting and harvesting. There's tilling and plowing. Both of which are hard to do well in poor soils and need power to drive steel through soil. Mules and oxen just don't put out that much power. Humans even less.
[1] https://youtu.be/3BfUsEGSSTg
Farming is not just planting and harvesting. There's tilling and plowing. Both of which are hard to do well in poor soils and need power to drive steel through soil. Mules and oxen just don't put out that much power. Humans even less.
[1] https://youtu.be/3BfUsEGSSTg
If you want lots and lots of solar punk aesthetics, check out https://solarpunk-aesthetic.tumblr.com
The images of some of the buildings, clothing or sceneries are simply gorgeous.
The images of some of the buildings, clothing or sceneries are simply gorgeous.
I like the terracotta + candle trick:
https://64.media.tumblr.com/372a3c79331f497794c9dc0df84a0566...
(Apparently heats up a room quite well in the event of powerloss)
https://64.media.tumblr.com/372a3c79331f497794c9dc0df84a0566...
(Apparently heats up a room quite well in the event of powerloss)
Does terracotta somehow magically increase the power output of the candle?
No, I think the effect is just that the pot is being heated up and will radiatively make it feel warmer in the vincinity because otherwise all the heat would be convectionally transported to the ceiling where you would feel little of it.
Possibly (although I'd say unlikely, considering the heat output of the candle), but it certainly won't heat up the room.
OK, so after some googling I can say that my explanation was actually correct. A single ordinary tealight candle has a heat output of 30-40W though which is way too low to keep a room warm but the radiative heat from the pot indeed does heat nearby objects (or people) much like a patio/mushroom heater does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tealight
(German) https://www.kreativ-bastelstube.de/teelichtofen-heizleistung...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tealight
(German) https://www.kreativ-bastelstube.de/teelichtofen-heizleistung...
That's one thing I made a mental note of as well!
A few comments here have been along the lines "how can you make good stories without conflicts," which I think is missing what makes something "solarpunk" rather than just "utopian". Obviously, there's a lot of ways you can express this, but I'm going to use the words of the linked manifesto, judiciously edited to focus on how you bring stories out of it:
What does a sustainable civilization look like, and how can we get there? Solarpunk is concerned with the struggles en route to a better world. The "punk" in solarpunk is about rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decolonialism, and enthusiasm. It is about going in a different direction than the mainstream, which is increasingly going in a scary direction. [The solarpunk] future must involve repurposing and creating new things from what we already have.
A solarpunk story isn't about how nice utopia is once it's achieved. If anything, what makes it punk is the recognition that if you want utopia, you are going to have to fight like hell to get as close as possible, that a "true" utopia is by definition impossible, and that "as close to utopia as we can get" isn't a finish line you get to cross over and bask in for eternity. Staying there is going to take work. And the solarpunk idea of utopia even as described in my little snippet -- let alone the whole linked manifesto -- is certainly not universally shared. There will be people who will fight, very hard, to keep that particular vision of utopia from happening.
And that, you can definitely build a story around.
What does a sustainable civilization look like, and how can we get there? Solarpunk is concerned with the struggles en route to a better world. The "punk" in solarpunk is about rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decolonialism, and enthusiasm. It is about going in a different direction than the mainstream, which is increasingly going in a scary direction. [The solarpunk] future must involve repurposing and creating new things from what we already have.
A solarpunk story isn't about how nice utopia is once it's achieved. If anything, what makes it punk is the recognition that if you want utopia, you are going to have to fight like hell to get as close as possible, that a "true" utopia is by definition impossible, and that "as close to utopia as we can get" isn't a finish line you get to cross over and bask in for eternity. Staying there is going to take work. And the solarpunk idea of utopia even as described in my little snippet -- let alone the whole linked manifesto -- is certainly not universally shared. There will be people who will fight, very hard, to keep that particular vision of utopia from happening.
And that, you can definitely build a story around.
Where in the aesthetic or canon of solarpunk is this "fighting like hell" evoked or depicted?
We need more help on solar powered computers such as the Raspberry Pi from https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about.html.
Also, forget streaming. Use youtube-dl and streamripper (streaming music) everywhere you can.
I grew up in the 60's and read a lot of Science Fiction in the 70's as a teen. I found a lot of optimistic takes on the future, which are largely being born out: incredible advances in medical technology, home computers and now computers that fit in a pocket, affordable ability to communicate, video conference or travel anywhere in the world, the failure of totalitarian communism, amazing space telescopes, civilian space travel, phasing out fossil fuels for solar and other renewable energy and so on. I'm optimistic we will invent technology to deal with climate change and food/water shortages.
Yet after the Vietnam war, race riots, Charles Manson, the oil embargo and 12% inflation, the media just loves to promote doom and gloom about the future. I think anxious people shop more to distract themselves. Sometimes I feel like a lone optimist.
Yet after the Vietnam war, race riots, Charles Manson, the oil embargo and 12% inflation, the media just loves to promote doom and gloom about the future. I think anxious people shop more to distract themselves. Sometimes I feel like a lone optimist.
It seems to me the pace of technological improvement over the last 20 years has gotten smoked by the pace of environmental degradation.
It's been uneven. For example, before the clean air and water act the Cleveland River was on fire and you couldn't see through the smog in Los Angeles. Lately, Greenland announced the end of oil exploration, just one example of progress. We are learning as we go. We recently discovered the coral of The Great Barrier Reef is dying. I believe we will find solutions like we have in the past.
To be fair outside of computing there's been little visible change to our habitats and way of life since 2001.
That feeling of being a lone optimist is ever-present for me as well. Sometimes I think it’s just a lack of real transcendent and great art. If science fiction’s heyday is over, which artists are seeing and imagining the future today?
My personal biases incline me to think psychedelics have an important role to play.
My personal biases incline me to think psychedelics have an important role to play.
Yet another lone optimist here too :) I grew up with a TV show called "Beyond 2000" about the miraculous things the future would bring. The future was widely seen as exciting and better than the present. But nowadays, popular culture seems pretty negative about it, as does science fiction. Maybe the really influential technologies like cars, transistors, computers, and space travel have finished their initial rapid growth and over-hyped stage? But why isn't machine learning or some of the new biotech technologies taking its place? They're as exciting as buggery to me!
We learn a lot for dystopian fiction. But when dystopia becomes and end to itself, where any optimistic vision of the future is laughed out of the room as naive, I think we've lost something vital.
If the media shows doom and gloom, doesn’t that mean people work harder to prevent it?
Maybe we reach a point where it gets so bad that more people give up than fight against it?
Maybe we reach a point where it gets so bad that more people give up than fight against it?
I do think we need groups willing to be optimistic about technology. Some of this falls under what I always called techno-optimism, and what I hope to follow in my own vision for the future. Love to see it
We're currently releasing a solarpunk novel through Substack in a serialized weekly format. Like many of the comments here have mentioned, we were interested in addressing the issues of how to tell a story in a sustainable world. I'd love to hear some feedback, especially since we're having to edit it ourselves. https://kbbailey.substack.com
Is there anything for nuclear??
The only proper use of the last nuclear plants is to provide the huge quantities of energy necessary to capture back CO2, undoing the damage of the last two centuries. Then they'll can be put to rest.
That's just utopia.
Hugged to death
https://archive.is/tTLWR
https://archive.is/tTLWR
Not optimistic, but a great sci fi novel dealing with sustainable tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl
It's weird to see this:
- Solarpunk emphasizes environmental sustainability and social justice.
- Solarpunk recognizes science fiction as not just entertainment but as a form of activism.
- Solarpunk culture includes all cultures, religions, abilities, sexes, genders and sexual identities.
- Solarpunk is diverse, has room for spirituality and science to coexist, is beautiful [..]
The “punk” in Solarpunk is about rebellion, counterculture, post-capitalism, decolonialism and enthusiasm. It is about going in a different direction than the mainstream, which is increasingly going in a scary direction.
- Solarpunk emphasizes environmental sustainability and social justice.
- Solarpunk recognizes science fiction as not just entertainment but as a form of activism.
- Solarpunk culture includes all cultures, religions, abilities, sexes, genders and sexual identities.
- Solarpunk is diverse, has room for spirituality and science to coexist, is beautiful [..]
I'll believe that these are "the most mainstream and established values of our time" if and when a sweeping "green new deal" style economic overhaul policy is passed and implemented in a majority of rich countries.
"Punk" is meaningless in these contexts, and it should not be used, or at the very least it should be admitted. It's just riding on the popularity and the brand-recognition of "cyberpunk".
I don't know enough to say this for sure, but my impression is that solarpunk emerged as a drop in replacement for the (sexist) "helpless white girl" trope in cyberpunk. That is to say, the a solarpunk person or community exists inside of a cyberpunk work as an innocent thing which motivates the cyberpunk hero to protect it or seek revenge for its destruction. Just as with the "helpless white girl" trope, the solarpunks in a cyberpunk work lack agency--they're just victims whose primary purpose is to act as motivators for the characters with agency. This is sometimes cringefully underscored by the solarpunk character also being a helpless white girl (with all the sexism that implies).
In the better cases of solarpunk-in-cyberpunk, this may initially come across as condescending, but realize that in context, the cyberpunk hero is only putting on a show of agency. The nihilism of cyberpunk comes from the fact that the cyberpunk hero's actions are ultimately pointless. The capitalist overlords in a cyberpunk work are like Greek gods: immortal. In this context, the cyberpunk heroes' struggles are ultimately in vain--the capitalist overlord may not always win, but the cyberpunk hero always loses. Given this, the solarpunks' decision to carve out some small happiness for themselves before their inevitable destruction seems more reasonable--the cyberpunk hero is a tragic hero whose fatal flaw is that they can't admit defeat, and have to suffer their entire lives struggling ineffectually against powers beyond their control.
In a way that's an insight into why I identify so viscerally with cyberpunk: I want to be solarpunk but I'm too cynical. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's certainly not an enjoyable thing--I think ultimately I'm happiest when I can be a little less cyberpunk and a little more solarpunk.
In the better cases of solarpunk-in-cyberpunk, this may initially come across as condescending, but realize that in context, the cyberpunk hero is only putting on a show of agency. The nihilism of cyberpunk comes from the fact that the cyberpunk hero's actions are ultimately pointless. The capitalist overlords in a cyberpunk work are like Greek gods: immortal. In this context, the cyberpunk heroes' struggles are ultimately in vain--the capitalist overlord may not always win, but the cyberpunk hero always loses. Given this, the solarpunks' decision to carve out some small happiness for themselves before their inevitable destruction seems more reasonable--the cyberpunk hero is a tragic hero whose fatal flaw is that they can't admit defeat, and have to suffer their entire lives struggling ineffectually against powers beyond their control.
In a way that's an insight into why I identify so viscerally with cyberpunk: I want to be solarpunk but I'm too cynical. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's certainly not an enjoyable thing--I think ultimately I'm happiest when I can be a little less cyberpunk and a little more solarpunk.
What was the last successful artistic genre where theory preceded practice?
Arguably, modernism. See the work of Le Corbusier, in particular, which was hugely influential in the US and led to the vision of cities as "towers in the park." Now, that didn't turn out so great, because it turns out the real world is gritty and messy and expensive and difficult to deal with, but the art absolutely preceded the attempted implementation.
Sadly, this sounds a little bit like Anarchism. We won't stop climate change without stopping the polluters, or massive geoengineering. So the solution must involve large-scale coordination and collaboration - the opposite of Anarchism.
Anarchism as a political theory can involve large-scale coordination and collaboration.
Would you suggest me some readings on anarchism as a political theory?
Perhaps this is a good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman#Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman#Philosophy
Check out Murray Bookchin's "The Ecology of Freedom"
Some great principles, but where do they stand on decentralisation of power?
It's hard to see the fuzzy feelings of this movement not being co-opted by state/corporate power to solidify their control of resources.
It's hard to see the fuzzy feelings of this movement not being co-opted by state/corporate power to solidify their control of resources.
I feel like solarpunk is largely anti authoritarian.
Is bill gates now a solar punk as well?
[deleted]
Lame. This is just the United Nation's global homogeniety agenda
> has room for spirituality and science to coexist
No thanks
It's also not clear to me how one would combine tech with ecology, especially solar
No thanks
It's also not clear to me how one would combine tech with ecology, especially solar
And my favorite poem of all time is https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/weeke...
There is a strong solarpunk vs cyberpunk split in art and sci-fi which provides some beautiful contrasts: https://mobile.twitter.com/ScootFoundation/status/1330271990...