Is SolarPunk intrinsically progressive? What elements of reaction and conservatism are symptoms of potential subsumption of SolarPunk into the status quo?

    • sexy_peach@feddit.de
      3·
      3 years ago

      Doing some Solarpunk stuff on our own in a more or less rural setting is easy.

      I honestly disagree. Rural living in the developed world has the worst co2 footprint etc imaginable. Yes, it looks close to nature, but living in a city is more environmentally friendly.

      But of course solarpunk is needed both in cities and everywhere else ;)

        • sexy_peach@feddit.de
          2·
          3 years ago

          Hmm. I think that with the current infrastructure (houses, roads etc) it’s not as easy as you say. Powering a rural house with renewables requires extensive insulation, free standing houses are inefficient to heat etc. Travelling in rural areas often requires people to travel larger distances than in cities.

          If we compare possible future infrastructure I think cities could gain a lot as well. Generally it doesn’t really matter which is better or worse, because both are needed obviously. I just don’t like it if people pretend like rural living is better for the planet or more in line with nature. It’s not.

  • comfy
    2·
    3 years ago

    I am no expert, but some thoughts:

    It’s hard to answer without more detail on the definition of progressive.

    For example, technologically and design-wise it’s a mix. We can use innovative, progressive techniques like natural cooling [example] (even if I would say it’s not technologically progressive, almost the opposite, I would say it’s definitely progressive design and incidentally a good thing). We can abandon technologies we considered progresses like hybrid cars and farming practices and embrace established tools like electric rail. Progress is a weird, relative word.

    Overall solarpunk seems to be technologically progressive, even if aiming to regress the apparent massive progress made in our current systems; I argue that progressing into a dead end isn’t as progressive as partially regressing, changing direction, and progressing. It’s a very poor analogy, I realize solarpunk doesn’t aim to regress before progressing, but I think you understand my point that commercial rockets to put up TV channels isn’t my idea of progressive even if it was technologically innovative and unforeseen.

    If you mean the mainstream label of social progressivism… it’s a harder questions, even disregarding the relativity of progress. Solarpunk will tend to attract people who have typical progressive social views, but I don’t feel it’s strictly inherent in any way towards the anti status quo, pro nature goals of the movement. Even the original punk movement had a minority of nazi subcultures who embraced the counter-cultural aspects. Are they punk? I would say not, but they can certainly feel at home unless they are made to be uncomfortable, which is obviously foreseeable due to the proven appeal of this movement and crossover with anarchism and other punk influence. (I realize ‘-punk’ is abused as a standard suffix in some subcultures misinterpreting cyberpunk, but I don’t think solarpunk is one of those. There is definitely some punk in it)

    I think it’s inevitably going to be progressive as a design movement (unless recuperated to remove all meaning, which is a non-answer to your question), but in terms of social progressiveness, that’s only inherent in its main audience. I haven’t given this much thought and have little exposure to the theory and definitions, so do feel welcome to correct me.