Hacker News Reader

Comment by DennisP | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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?

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.

Constructed utopian hope as an ultrarationalized countermovement to the apathy of irrational, profit-motivated urbanization.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com