My initial reply was apparently eaten, and for the sake of politeness, I will assume that my confirmation request of sunlitrevolution was, likewise.
To Watson’s ( watsons-solarpunk ‘s) point that I have misunderstood what SolarPunk is about, I acknowledge that I had never run across the here-and-now portion of it. Instead, all I have ever seen is the Utopian end product and, indeed, an entire post dedicated to explaining why the green tech, green development and many of the current changes and possibilities are not really SolarPunk. Instead, the post very much left me with the conclusion that SolarPunk was, at a minimum, a far-future Utopia where some sort of massive cataclysm (or just an extremely long stretch of time, more than just a couple centuries) had all but razed cities such that they would be rebuilt with narrower streets since they were planned in a world with no cars or trucks.
Both of you (Watson and Sun) seem to be more involved or appraised in some of the early-stage of the genre, and while I am disheartened that the more exciting part (to me) is the portion I haven’t found much of, I stand by my assertion that it’s important to recognize that the end-goal is pretty much a utopia, a point which I think has been utterly lost under the critique of my noticed problems in SolarPunk. I consider this label important for a few reasons, but one thing I want to make clear: one complete and utter non-reason is “because utopia’s are awful” or some such notion. My main point was NOT how terrible, worthless, and/or pointless SolarPunk is, though that seems to be what you and Sun have taken away from it, what with Watson claiming I have “dismissed” the genre. Instead, what I was trying to bring up is my combined interest/discomfort with the genre and what I can easily see happening because of people, being people, based on my own life experiences.
As I stated initially, I’m emotionally torn. There’s a reason for it: I question how many people that I have seen posting SolarPunk recognize the Utopian components of the genre as they are viewing it and therefore it’s possible limitations; so far, some not-so minor details have not been addressed in the future-visions I’ve seen by anything more than a hand-waving “we’ll get there” “it’ll be solved” or straight up ignoring the problem.
To put it another way, whileI like the overall idea and some of the things I’ve seen in SolarPunk, I feel discomfort in interacting with SolarPunk and a community that, as far as I have seen, has built a utopia, but that doesn’t necessarily think that it’s a utopia. In my experience, when people don’t recognize that the thing they love is a “ an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect” (or aiming to build such a place) they are very likely to react extremely negatively to anyone and anything that pokes holes in their love. And with SolarPunk, I can see this happening. I can see anything that is said that is critical of the genre or setting not generating a worthwhile discussion aimed at determining feasibility, time frames, issues and possibilities, but churlish lash back. And how kind of unconquerd to provide an example:
“You think there’s problems with the thing I love?!? Well let’s see how you and your fantasy world would do it, HUH?! Why don’t you explain and show us everything since you claim to know everything! The *least* you could do is fulfill some ludicrously long request that I can come up with and feel special in making because I know that it’s not feasible for one person to solve all the world’s problems but I imagine I’m being terribly clever in trying to force you to admit you can’t do the things I imagined you to say you could, so that when you finally admit you’re not as amazing as I think you say you are, I can rub my brilliant observation of human limitations in your face!”
Or, rather than trying to help build a new genre’s Utopian vision and probably having to deal with asinine non-compostable piles of thought such as this, I can go back to something that actually gives me hope for the future because I don’t have an inborn faith in humanity, and readily admit to needing a Utopian vision to help me deal with the present. (Elementary, Watson, I AM a pessimist).
I can also then go back to idly wondering about details in a genre that I can see attracting one of the two halves of people I have to deal with on a regular business whom I don’t care to have to deal with in my off-time. Because I spend enough of my life hearing accusations of both being a hippie-crunchy-profit-and-job-hating-tree-hugger out to punish the poor businessman who has never done any of the evil things and also an oil-sucking-capitalistic-lackey for not obsequiously agreeing that if we just [insert bizarre world-saving-life-improving idea here] that magically everything will get better and no one will die.
I mean, in some ways, the parts that you guys are so excited about and want to try to include in building your amazing genre is my job; literally, I am an environmental engineer trying to get some things like what you dream about done.
But from the reactions I have seen and heard to my thoughts on subjects, I face an uphill battle everyday between what two different sides think need to be done. And more often than not, I feel like the people who you might be inclined to think would be supportive, aren’t. Because they want it done now and with no compromise to their vision, and they will not listen to possible problems and effects of their “brilliant” ideas. Because in their pursuit of their utopia, which they do not recognize as one, they will not consider that there will be problems. That there is no such thing as a perfect, instant, cheap solution.
And that is was has caused my discomfort with SolarPunk. Because the kind of people who demand exactly those such things, and refuse to listen to questions on “how exactly does that work without doing X?” which may upend the way they picture their world working, are the kind of people I can also see in parts of the SolarPunk community (you know, some the ones I have received a chunk of my understanding of the genre through).
Upfront labeling it as a Utopian vision neither degrades the hope and inspiration it can give nor will it prevent people from reacting in the way to which I am so accustomed (and exhausted). But, I contend that honestly claiming the genre to be a Utopian setting makes it minutely easier to interject and have people more likely to consider the issues they haven’t in trying to build their utopia.can spend a lot of time
And until I can get rid of the discomfort I feel, I’m torn about the whole SolarPunk movement.
TL:DR I am still torn by my interest in and uncertainty of SolarPunk. I can now honestly stand even more by my assertion that it would be beneficial to many to acknowledge that can now honestly stand even more by my assertion that is trying to build and/or it’s final vision is, a Utopia. Utopias are great to gain inspiration and hope from, but I think failing to label something as a “no-place,” a “wouldn’t it be great if…” world, can actually make the task of enacting positive, but not perfect change more difficult. People don’t like it when you poke their happy places with curmudgeonly sticks and point out the flaws, particularly if they hold those places so dear because it’s their hope for the future. And that’s what makes me both excited and leery of SolarPunk.
2087
dailybridgerton
vaporwave
izzy806
blakekathryn
andulkaphoto
tangentwithtanner
pixelskylines
discoholicmusic
stormborns
