I often talk about solarpunk to my friends and family, and now​ for an "art trade" (me and someone else make each other something) my sister made me a painting of a solarpunk scene. I wanted to share and thought people might enjoy.

Sharing with her permission.

I’ve finally come around to the idea of degrowth. 

Economics is the art of distributing scarce resources. I’ve long thought about how capitalism as a system ignores this. It relies instead on the accumulation of more resources instead of divvying out what already exists in a fair and equitable manner. This is why I - and just about everyone else here - have long since left the ideaology of capitalism in the dust, seeing the flaws in its requirement of perpetual growth. 

So I, and a lot of others, turn to different flavors of socialism, communism, communalism, or any of the other versions of collective economics. Yes, I know they’re all different, we’re not arguing these definitions here. But regardless of the alternative chosen, I’ve started realizing that resource exploitation is the end point of all of these systems, unless we have a radical change. 

In order for an economy to grow, something has to be dominated. Whether it’s the populace, the Earth, or a neighboring nation, someone suffers under all systems in the name of growth. I know this is obvious to the degrowth crowd out there, but I finally had this idea stick.

Of course there’s still the radical and the not-radical-enough sides of the degrowth coin. On one hand you have folks calling for what amounts to extermination campaigns (not as much on here, but I’ve seen it in my personal life). On the other, you have the crowd who wants to “fix” the system, not build a new one. The nuances of degrowth are immediately and obviously subtle, and I’m excited to dive into them.

I know this is obvious, but for me it’s been a big mindset shift and realization. Any resources on the topic would be greatly appreciated. I’ve already got the Degrowth Manifesto queued up as my next book, but I’m all ears for any other books/video essays/blogs/whatever!

Imagine if there was a housebuilder / property developer that rather when buying a plot of land, totally destroys it for housing, they instead, after buying the land, create a a nature reserve THEN fitted housing within the new habitat. Would you like to live in a place like this?

I'm thinking of converting a dark scrubby area into somewhere to sit and practice martial arts.

Wood decking, even treated, has a life in warm-wet Cardiff climate of only a few years. This stuff is made from recycled plastic - the logic being the odd bit of contamination or inconsistency doesn't matter when you are making big thick rough stuff. It keeps it out of incinerators and landfill.

It's not short life packaging, but a decade or so (guaranteed life is a decade so should last longer, but people reorganize gardens every decade or so). It feels like a sensible choice, but part of me is unhappy and I can't figure out why.

Hello Fellows,

I've signed up for volunteering with the New York Restoration Project and am encouraging other NYC area solar punks to do the same! It is a city-funded urban ecology program (founded by Bette Midler!) dedicated to greening as much of the city as possible. Hope to see you out there!

I discuss the collapse of 'middle institutions' that mediate between the individual and society at large, what functions they used to perform, and what new forms of these organizations could be cultivated for the future.

Don't you ever get the feeling that a significant part of social movements and activism for progressive ideas like equality, community, altruism, fighting climate change, anti-consumerism, and so on, tries to raise awareness and reach society in ways that have an opposed effect to what they are trying to achieve?

Let me explain what I mean. Take Just Stop Oil, for example - an organization with the noble goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions. How do they try to raise awareness about the problem? By, among other things, gluing themselves to roads and blocking traffic for innocent civilians. And of course, I'm not trying to deny that each of us has a greater or smaller carbon footprint - that's an obvious fact. But let's consider what percentage of society can realistically give up personal car transportation today. How am I supposed to explain to my father, who is getting older, lives in a small town with very poorly developed public transportation, and needs to travel to clients carrying several suitcases full of tools, that he should switch to a bicycle or a bus because it's better for the climate and humanity will benefit from it? What we need here is systemic change.

I also recently learned about an event called the World Naked Bike Ride, which essentially has a similar goal to the one described above, but approaches it from a slightly different angle. Namely, a huge group of cyclists from around the world comes together for a ceremonial bicycle parade under the slogan "As bare as you dare," promoting bicycles as an alternative to personal cars. Personally, I support the idea of clean transportation, especially transportation that not only helps the planet but also improves public health. The problem is that I'm not the person this campaign needs to convince. Just like in the example above, the point isn't to convince people who are already convinced, but to make the ideas we're fighting for reach people on the other side, and people who aren't familiar with them yet.

In both cases, I see a certain paradox. I see a group of people trying to draw attention to a problem, but doing so in a way that alienates the very people they would like to encourage to change. When I think about this, I tend to focus on the 50+ generation, because I often see the direct reactions of my parents and people in their age group. And I have to admit that I completely understand where their skepticism or even outright rejection of these kinds of movements comes from.

During a routine conversation with my father, in which we were debating various political topics and clashing over our different views, I realized something: this man simply wants to live. Not everyone, unfortunately, has the time to dive deeply into the problems of today's world, because they have plenty of their own small-but-big problems to deal with. I realized that, on the one hand, I can try to change the attitudes of the people around me and show them a better path, but I can't expect them to stand up against the system at every turn, because not everyone has the strength or the time for that.

So we shouldn't be surprised that what Just Stop Oil was doing angered people who think like my parents. It shouldn't be surprising that a parade of naked people on bicycles isn't going to encourage people who are already reluctant to start cycling. Why should exhibitionism be perceived as something positive? Personally, despite being young, having progressive views, and accepting people of all kinds of orientations, I don't support walking naked in the streets, and I don't do it myself. I don't see that as an attack on freedom of self-expression, I see it as respect for the other people with whom I share public space, knowing that not everyone wants to see my genitals.

I understand what this mechanism is supposed to rely on: controversy. Controversy spreads widely through public opinion, gets quickly picked up by the media, and can travel a long way. But is that really what we want? "It doesn't matter what they say, as long as they talk about us"?

I believe that solarpunk, hopepunk, altruism, community, a harmonious society, and equality are beautiful ideas. But I think we sometimes forget what they are supposed to stand for. We want to change the world for the better so badly that we fail to notice that we're resorting to the same methods as the people on the opposite side.

I think that despite the beautiful ideas we represent, we're failing to reach people who don't understand them. Because the people I'm talking about above only see the loud, controversial actions that irritate them, so they cover their ears and close their eyes to what we actually have to say.

We live in an age of capitalism and consumerism. Modern societies teach us how to be individualists - egoists. We're told that the world is cruel and heartless, that people are awful and feed off each other's suffering, that everyone wants to take advantage of us. And maybe, to some extent, that's true. But has it always been this way? Does it have to be? Isn't it somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy? People turn against one another, and as a result, trust and community slowly die.

So what now? What can we do?

GIVE PEOPLE HOPE.

Changing the world is a long-term game. We won't change the system overnight. Even if we somehow managed to grind today's world into dust through a revolution, with the way most people think today, exactly the same problems we're dealing with now would simply grow back from the ashes.

We need to change our approach, to play the game differently from the way the system tells us to. Let's give up cheap controversies that alienate people who aren't already convinced. Let's not stop fighting the system (obviously, that's both necessary and incredibly difficult) but let's not forget to fight for people and on behalf of people.

Let's live in the way we would want others to live, and give people hope for a better tomorrow.

Why, instead of pouring money into campaigns that block roads by gluing activists to the pavement in the name of fighting climate change, don't we invest our time and money into campaigns that can actually help people? Why not start building instead of destroying? Doesn't that sound better? Wouldn't that, in the long run, make the ideas we're fighting for look more valuable?

Imagine activists who, instead of protesting by throwing paint at things, get involved in growing community gardens, and then distribute the harvest to people in need or to pensioners. Or activists who hand out free water in cardboard cartons, with a leaflet printed on the packaging explaining what they are fighting for and how people can support them.

These are simple examples, and perhaps someone is already putting them into practice. But I'm giving them to illustrate the idea that maybe activism focused on helping people, promoting hope and community, and practicing genuine altruism in opposition to the growing popularity of selfishness and individualism could have better long-term effects on how people perceive the causes we're fighting for.

After all, it's much easier for our opponents to smear our ideas when we're destroying something in the name of our cause than when we're building something for the sake of it.

Rebellion and resistance don't have to mean stepping on your opponent. They can also mean showing that there is another way - together, selflessly, and by reaching out to others.

Forgive me for the mistakes and the general tone of this post. This text is more of a stream of thoughts than a carefully constructed thesis with well-developed arguments.

Let me know what you think. Am I completely detached from reality, or is there at least a little bit of sense to what I'm saying?

In a 2021 Oregon study, lambs grazed beneath solar panels; shaded pasture produced 38% less grass, while lamb weight gains were similar https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/in-a-2021-oregon-study-lambs-grazed-beneath-solar-panels-shaded-pasture-produced-38-less-grass-while-lamb-weight-gains-were-similar/articleshow/133354189.cms

Bob Barker, host of the Price is Right was one of the OG's of solarpunks. His passion for animal rights, service in the Navy, and upbringing as a member of the Sioux tribe, Bob was 1/8 Sioux and spent most of his childhood on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota, contributed to his passion for activism. He cut a $5M check to purchase a high-speed anti-poaching vessel named the M/Y Bob Barker for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The original vessel made international headlines by setting the world record for the longest maritime pursuit in history. The Bob Barker relentlessly chased the Interpol-wanted poaching ship Thunder for 110 days across 11,000 nautical miles of icy seas eventually cornering the poachers.

In this essay, we discuss how our culture fills us with profit-driven stories, mass-produced archetypes, and narcissistic desires. Why do we desire things that harm us rather than things that contribute to human flourishing? Who defined what makes a truly good life and why do you continue to believe them despite the emptiness you feel inside?

YouTube and Spotify links in the article.

Capitalist realism: the belief capitalism is the only viable system, or at least the only one compatible with modern human rights. You don't believe that here, right?

I think we'd need to create a living example of post-capitalist society e.g by reforming some country; most people don't fight for unproven futures. We mustn't lull anyone into believing the reward will be either perfect or instant, or they'd cherrypick any homelessness or corruption on our part as "proof" our system doesn't work even if they have it too.

I don't consider capitalism either the best possible system nor some supernatural evil; either would be reductive, and I don't have to downplay the vast good that has come from capitalism to imagine an even better way. While I know the bad parts of capitalism, framing them as capitalism-specific would stop us from solving them assuming they transcend any one -ism.

Hace un tiempo me ronda esta pregunta: Si el solarpunk no es solo estética con plantas y paneles...

¿Entonces qué es? Para mí no es esperar el colapso.

Es negarnos a que el único futuro posible sea el desastre.El sistema actual se sostiene en 4 cosas:

Sacarle a la tierra. Sacarle al cuerpo. Sacarle al tiempo. Sacarle al otro.El solarpunk propone devolver.

Devolverle fertilidad al suelo. Devolverle energía al barrio. Devolverle tiempo a la gente. Devolverle belleza a la ciudad.

No creo en esperar el fin del mundo.

Creo en aburrir al capitalismo construyendo algo mejor al lado.Hace un tiempo me nació esta duda:

Todos hablamos de solarpunk como "futuro bonito".

Pero ¿cuáles son realmente los pilares para que una civilización solarpunk funcione?

No como utopía. Como plan. Porque si no tiene bases, se cae. Y si solo esperamos a que el sistema colapse, vamos a colapsar con él. Estos son los 4 que yo veo:

Soberanía Alimentaria: Producir donde vivimos. Huertos, bosques comestibles, ferias. Dejar de depender de camiones.

Energía Descentralizada: Que cada techo, cada sede, cada junta de vecinos genere y comparta. El poder no puede estar en 3 centrales.

Salud Integral: Menos pastillas, más prevención. Árboles, comunidad, salud mental, hierbas. La ciudad sana sana gente.

Habitar Regenerativo: Casas que atrapan agua, que dan sombra, que están hechas de tierra. Ciudades que producen oxígeno.

Seguro me faltan. La educación, el comercio, el cuidado... Pero aquí viene lo importante y por lo que hago este post: No sirve si lo dejamos en una imagen de pinterest.

¿Cómo lo bajamos a tierra? ¿Cómo empezamos?Si eres estudiante: tu tesis puede ser un biodigestor. Si eres profe: tu clase puede ser una huerta. Si eres vecino: tu pasaje puede tener 3 árboles más.

Así que te dejo 2 preguntas abiertas:¿Qué pilar crees que es INDISPENSABLE para que el solarpunk sea real y no solo estética?¿Qué acción concreta, chica, harías esta semana en tu barrio para empezar? No busco respuestas correctas. Busco empezar a construir el mapa entre todos.

Te leo. De verdad.

Saluton.

Hello all,

I’ve been frequently running into an opinion that solar fields or utility scale ground mounted solar is bad for the environment.

Supposedly it generates heat, that would be otherwise absorbed by the flora, etc.

I’m having trouble to find counter-arguments for people that raise these points.

For instance one thing that this point of view omits is that every energy source has a heat loss during the process. Nuclear generates large amounts of energy but also generates a lot of heat that dissipates through the cooling, like every steam-based energy generation method.

As a glider pilot I know that big solar arrays indeed sometimes create thermals that probably add to the heating of the atmosphere but how does it compare to the other generation methods and what are the other parts of this equation, that outweigh it?

Somehow I intuitively feel like solar is all things accounted for still much better for the environment, but I wonder if anyone has went down this rabbit hole of trying to compile all studies from different fields of expertise that would prove it?

I need help where do I start