From Cyberpunk to Solarpunk: Technics and the Cities of the Future | Hacker News Reader

From Cyberpunk to Solarpunk: Technics and the Cities of the Future

bluelabyrinths.com

105 pointsconanxin98 comments

If the essence of punk is rebellion, then solarpunk's punkitude lies in its rebellion against relentless contemporary pessimism. Doom, grievance, and cycnicism are now so mainstream that radical optimism and the imagination of a better future are what it takes to be revolutionary.

I think the rebellion is more about the current economically driven social system than pessimism. Though there is some part of that in there.

Absolutely. Any future requires speculation and imagination before practical application. Both go hand in hand.

I think that's a pretty contrived "after-the-fact" explanation for why it's called "~punk", that reduces the whole of punk culture to just mean "rebellion". But the truth is, just like every scandal is now called "~gate", new genres are just called "~punk" because it sounds good. Not because they have anything to do with punk culture. Where is the "rebellion" in "steampunk" or "dieselpunk"?

Totally, but perhaps by chance if not intent, the interpretation of "hope as rebellion" fits and is evocative, so let's use it.

> cyberpunk’s nihilistic dystopian vision has run out of steam

Cyberpunk is NOT advocating for dystopia, it's WARNING US about it.

Elon Musk has entered the chat.

That's exactly the type of savior complex mixed with breathtaking miscategorization you get from solarpunk advocates. They want a cool name and an aesthetic to go along with a socio-political movement so they pretend other artistic movements and styles are also some type of socio-political movement. Imagine seriously believing that steampunk enthusiasts see steampunk as a way to remake the world.

my personal favourite solarpunk inspired designs, was Vincent Callebaut Architectures’ proposal for the new roof of the Notre-Dame Cathedral after the fire

Imagine being so fucking smug you want to radically alter the reconstruction of a priceless historical building to make a political statement.

That redesign looks pretty cool tbh

Sure does. They should go build it. Somewhere other than on top of the eight hundred and sixty year old cathedral.

Why? The original roof is lost, and while we can painstaking recreate it, it still won't be the same roof. So why can't we upgrade such a historical landmark to be a beacon of the future?

Is that a serious question? The same reason we don't add dairy cows to cave drawings or put shiplap on the great wall of China or conduct civil war reenactments with predator drones . It's a historical landmark.

Na, the part that’s left is a historical landmark. The huge gaping hole in the roof is whatever we like it to be.

okay but why not just take down the entire thing and make something even cooler

Because that would be destroying history. Filling in a fire-made gap with something new is no more intrusive to the building than a restoration that bears all the hallmarks of this era anyway.

It is no more a destruction of history than to intentionally make it different than it was. It isnt ideal to need to repair it, but the more we can preserve the effect on our senses (sight) of the original the better.

If you fundamentally alter the way it looks, it is no longer a historical reference. It is something new, albeit with an interesting history / story.

If you redesign it, you should also rename it.

When something is repaired to the best of our ability, the future can look back on it and understand the context that we were trying to make it as it was - and all the hallmarks of this era will be identifiable as the minimum amount.

If we redesign it, we make it more about us and our current time. the future will likely be able to redesign it better, so it's just going to look like an ugly patch that is way too extra.

If we prefer to make the building about us and our current time, we should just destroy the entire thing and rebuild it from scratch as a full redesign.

The idea that we can make preservation repairs will be exposed as a fallacy a few decades after we've tried, when it becomes clear that our objectivity at the time was just regular hidebound contemporary trend following. Might as well embrace it and make something cool.

> artistic movements and styles are also some type of socio-political movement

Cyberpunk was social and political commentary from the start. Solarpunk is too, but feels less genuine. It feels like a corporate feel-good aesthetic designed for pharmaceutical television commercials hocking anti-depressants.

I've never seen much in the way of social or political commentary from steampunk. Steampunk is extremely kitsch. It looks cool, but there's not much more to it than looking cool and invoking pseudo-nostalgia for the 19th century. At best you get some weak commentary about 19th century colonialism and industrialization chewing people up, but mostly this genre is about glorifying the Victorian/Industrial style.

To me it feels absolutely anti corporate, even if that twee cartoon was a from a corporate ad. Solarpunk is about conceptualising new ways to invent the future. It's not kitsch like steampunk. It seems like the early days of a movement that could become extremely influential, and I think pushing that idea forward could lead to positive things in the future. Let's reserve our cynicism for things that need it and push these ideas as far as they can go.

> pretend other artistic movements and styles are also some type of socio-political movement

Pretend? It's literally in the first sentence of the wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk

"combination of lowlife and high tech" ... juxtaposed with societal collapse or decay

Citation: Thomas Michaud, "Science fiction and politics: Cyberpunk science fiction as political philosophy"

It does not get more political than that.

Have you seen the reference you are talking about?

https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/09/notre-dame-roof-vincent-ca...

I see nothing smug there, just a smart and appropriate upgrade. It fits seamlessly onto the rest of the structure, while the former roof was just a boring affair.

Restoring a historical object and making deliberate, unnecessary alterations is perverse. If the bottom half of the Mona Lisa was destroyed in a fire would you find it acceptable for the conservator to paint her in a blazer?

I don't care about Mona Lisa. Like I also don't care about many things other people seem to care about. They could tear down Cologne Cathedral and I'd shrug. Back to Paris, I think the Eiffel Tower and Centre national d'art et de culture Georges-Pompidou is more relevant to me, than a place built to worship something which I'm considering a cargo cult. But that's just me.

It was literally a speculative design. These things happen a lot in architecture. They lay the way for future projects even if they themselves will never be built. They are rebuilding the roof exactly as it was...

Yeah this article seems to have a really poor understanding of 'cyberpunk' and it's motivations.

He also calls an underground, generally unpopular aesthetic "tired". Cue my eyes rolling to the back of my head so hard they snap connecting nerves...

Underground and generally unpopular aesthetic? Really? Biggest sci-fi movie of the 80s? Blade Runner. Biggest sci-fi movie of the 90s? The Matrix. And these aren't just the biggest sci-fi movies, they were huge cultural phenomena when they came out. They definitely transcended the genre. Following those kinds of things the cyberpunk aesthetic became so ingrained in reality we barely even see it anymore. Screens of adverts plaster every new city centre. Even the term 'cyberspace' and other internet slang literally came from cyberpunk novels. All of that is mentioned in the cyberpunk articles. But the point is it's outdated and we need to work beyond it and create something new which can have a similar influence on the future.

They were practically the only cyberpunk movies with any significant impact. And what have we had over all these years on the gaming front? CP2077? Deus Ex? Shadowrun? And a handful of indie games? Sure there were a bunch... in the 90s.

So... one big cyberpunk movie every 10 years? Games every few?

Marvel, fantasy, all that other pop culture garbage sees new movies on a seemingly monthly cadence.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore cyberpunk as a genre and warning and seethe at watching the optimistic yuppies drag 'punk' through the mud with their 'rebellion against negativity' garbage. But cyberpunk is not a popular genre.

The fact that the two most inflential sci fi movies of all time are both cyberpunk tells you all you need to know. Even the fact they decided to make a modern CP2077, and how hyped it was, shows how much cultural force the genre still has. Neuromancer and Snow Crash are two of the best selling SF books of all time. Facebook literally named their new company Meta so they could push the 'metaverse' which was coined in Snow Crash... The list is endless honestly. Saying it's not as popular as Marvel means basically nothing. Superheroes are like modern day capitalist myths at this point. The whole purpose of those movies is to sell.

And my point is that over the last 20 years or so, I found myself spending a lot of time wishing there was more cyberpunk content out there.

Also I'm pretty sure Star Wars and Star Trek were as big, if not bigger.

Yes, The Matrix had a huge impact -- I was there for it. But that was as much about the revolution in VFX and cool shots than it was about having a cyberpunk setting. Besides, all of the followups (save for the Animatrix) have been duds.

CP2077 came to be because CDPR likes to take unknown franchises and elevate them to greatness; this is true for both The Witcher polish novels and the Cyberpunk TTRPG. While I think the demand for cyberpunk is certainly there, as evidenced by the folks' enthusiastic support for CP2077, I would not consider cyberpunk to be the dominant force in sci-fi. (The lukewarm reception for both the modern Blade Runner remake and the new Matrix confirm this opinion for me) I would suggest you consider your thoughts in a wider context.

> two most inflential sci fi movies of all time

Can you qualify this statement a bit more? I don't really agree here. The Matrix doesn't even appear in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films and the numbers here aren't worthy of the kind of praise you're heaping on it: https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Matrix#tab=summ...

It wasn't even the highest grossing film the year it came out, as it was eclipsed by Star Wars: Episode 1.

>Can you qualify this statement a bit more? I don't really agree here. The Matrix doesn't even appear in this list

It's obviously going to be somewhat subjective, but if take film critics or scholars words to have any weight since they are constantly comparing these things, The Matrix and Blade Runner are almost always at the top of 'Most Influential Sci-fi Movies of All Time' lists. e.g.

Empire: 1. BR 4. Matrix https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-sci-fi-mov...

Screenrant: 1. Matrix 4. BR https://screenrant.com/most-influential-sci-fi-movies-of-all...

Vogue: Not ranked but both are in the top 10 https://www.vogue.com/article/most-influential-sci-fi-films

Cultural ifluence doesn't equal financial success. (There are tons of best seller books out there that sell far more than classics ever have, but are forgotten about almost immediately after). The impact both films have had on popular culture is gigantic. Think of all the movies, TV shows, and cartoons that parodied or copied their styles. There's tons of scholarship out there on it too, but still it's always going to be somewhat subjective.

But yeah I somewhat agree that cyberpunk style was starting to die out in the early 2000s, I just think it had a revival recently due to the fact that certain elements of cyberpunk really came to fruition in recent years. https://bluelabyrinths.com/2018/12/05/cyberpunk-1-0-visions-...

Depends on how you look at it. It could also be seen as desensitization,

to soften you up for acceptance of "there is no alternative" via shock doctrine.

Furthermore, also depending on how and where you look at it,

we've long overtaken the warnings of 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451 and following, at least partially.

It didn't say anything about advocating. It was a vision of the future that cam true in a lot of senses. But now it's run out of steam. It seems dated. New visions of the future are necessary, and solarpunk is one of them. That's the point.

I love the word 'technics' to describe technology, it rhymes with 'ethics' etc, and sounds very 1960's scifi, Dune, etc.

Doesn't it rather rhyme with 'ethnics'? 'ethics' is to my ear, a half-rhyme...

I've always thought it was pronounced like 'techniques' and at first thought the author was talking about the turntable/hi-fi brand

I prefer tethics lol

I like that better than technics. :D

It's to distinguish from technology which has more of a specific philosophical meaning. Technics can refer to practice (e.g. techniques) as well as objects.

Mumford wrote a fascinating history of technology nearly a century ago -- Technics and Civilization -- in which he tried to identify key technologies to each technological era going back many hundreds of years.

Problem-solving infused with optimism.

Optimism is necessary if insufficient for success. In the face of unmitigated existential threat, irrational optimism is rational.

Method(ical) acting: "What's my motivation ?"

In order to build the future we want, it's necessary to imagine it. Right?

This is why I like the idea of solarpunk architecture being the catalyst for social/political change.

"Life cannot be delegated; it must be integrated. Solarpunk is not just about beautiful green futuristic cityscapes, it is about projecting an image of the future free from authoritarian technics."

The lived environment isn't sufficient to catalyse political change, as seen in Singapore, but it's definitely a start. Projecting a better future is the first step in making it into reality. If these ideas start to pervade the public consciousness, engineers and designers will start integrating them into their projects and this could be politically subversive in and of itself.

Japanese and South Korean cities may have "Cyberpunk" aesthetics, but other Cyberpunk elements (brain implants anyone?) haven't materialised yet, so talking of "Cyberpunk 2.0" is a bit premature in my opinion...

I think it's rather cyberpunk that have Japanese esthetics not the other way around :)

I know several people with RFID implants. The Apple Watch collects health metrics, among a other things. A guy had a Bluetooth speaker implanted to cheat exams in India.

I think the most dystopic example is the Poor sods whose bionic eyes ceased functioning when the company folded.

Yeah, ok, an RFID implant is cool, but it's just something embedded under your skin, so a far cry from a computer interface implanted in your brain...

Implants are not a thing because there's already a much better alternative in the form of highly portable devices that can be easily replaced. Unless there's a specific use case where a device needs to be inside the body, it won't happen.

Tbf the 2.0 aspect was almost purely aesthetic, but saying that in that article there is a specific mention of things like phones and other tech that's so ingrained in the society in way that wouldn't have been imaginable in the 80s during the OG cyberpunk period.

Ive been to Songdo twice, and to this date it remains my most notable or bizarre asian experience. I found it absolutely fascinating.

I walked endlessly over empty 4 lane car roads, gazing up at huge towering empty skyscrapers build on undeveloped waste-land that stay dark at night. Because they are void of inhabitants.

Its to big to be walk-able for most people, the bike lanes are symbolic at best. Unlike, say Singapore, the metro stations are few and far in between, leaving but the car. Commuting to Seoul is equally painful. There is no fast direct link.

The 'smart' bit is completely lost on me.

I have to say, solarpunk has always seemed like a silly concept. Where's windpunk in this picture?

The long-term energy picture for civilization ultimately has to embrace the closed-loop model, in which exhaustible resources - ancient deposits of fossil fuels and uranium ore - are not the basis of the energy supply. In that situation, there are really only about two plausible energy sources: inputs from the local gravitationally contained fusion reactor, aka "the Sun", in the form of sunlight and wind, and geothermal inputs from the hot interior of the Earth.

Utilizing such energy sources over the long term has several constraints: you want to stabilize the chemical composition of the atmosphere, to avoid things like runaway heating or cooling, you want to ensure that soil - in which food grows - is stable and not polluted, you want to ensure that fresh water is available, you want to avoid stripping all the oxygen out of the ocean, and of course, this all means stabilizing the human population on the planet at a level that makes all this possible over the long run. And, leave enough of the planet's wilderness around to support biological diversity, that seems important too.

Maybe we call it 'steady-state-closed-system-sustainable-with-room-for-other-species-punk'...

Regarding the theme of surveillance, I am surprised that the surveillance failure at Notre Dame isn't explicitly mentioned.

>This powerful fire has awakened our dystopian imagination and somewhat echoed the church’s current identify crisis

Notre Dame burned down because there was surveillance, but it was not correctly wired and the wrong location was checked [1]

>At 18:20 the fire alarm sounded and guards evacuated the cathedral; a guard was sent to investigate, but to the wrong location

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire

I don't think having fire detectors or a strange and esoteric control panel is what most people would call surveillance.

It feels more like Gilliam's "Brazil" and less like Orwell's "1984".

Are you aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasyl ?

I've found it to be entertaining. It also fits into the dystopia/surveillance spectrum.

Most commercial surveillance installations are ancient, or rely on ancient ancient infrastructure - there’s not always a need to upgrade if the security guard is able to at least see some blurry figures on a screen from his desk, which is probably enough in many cases.

What is a solar punk book to recommend?

Solarpunk doesn't really do stories compared to other "-punks". Optimism doesn't provide compelling conflicts. "Nausiccaä of the Valley of the Wind" is "Post apocalyptic" solarpunk manga (and an old one at that).

https://best-sci-fi-books.com/16-best-solarpunk-books/ seems reasonable.

Reading a book on permaculture seems the most solarpunk "Permaculture: A Designers' Manual"by Bill Mollison stands out there.

Definitely not "solarpunk" in the strictest sense but Star Trek - The Next Generation does depict many ideals of solarpunk. Sometimes directly, but often indirectly too (like scenes at Starfleet Academy).

One of the reasons I really enjoy Star Trek TNG is that it has that optimistic of the future vs many of the other Sci-Fi shows that often focus on a more dystopian universe (even if they're not strictly "cyberpunk").

There haven't really been many other shows I can think of that have the same tone as TNG. Definitely The Orville; but that's to be expected as it's pretty much a love letter to Star Trek.

I would add Station Eleven to this adjacency list

>"Nausiccaä of the Valley of the Wind" is "Post apocalyptic" solarpunk manga (and an old one at that).

By that same token, I think I heard LoZ: Breath of the Wild described as post-apocalyptic solarpunk once

Walkaway by Cory Doctorow has imo solarpunk elements, but isn’t entirely that.

Usually, solar"punk" has zero amounts of punk in it, so you won't find books similar to what other -punk have done. As they state:

> At its core, solarpunk is the ecological antidote to cyberpunk.

I really wish the people behind this aesthetic would move to a name better reflecting their aspirations. Solar-nouveau, solar utopia, whatever.

Solarpunk has pretty strong anti-capitalist leanings. It doesn't have the punk element of being "low-life" like cyberpunk is, but the commonality between the two genres is that cyberpunk imagines the world that unlimited corporate power would create (from an 80s perspective, hence the neon and ascendant Japanese themes), and solarpunk imagines a world where the negative side-effects of capitalism (exploitation, alienation, environmental damage etc) are mitigated. It's like the optimistic mirror image to cyberpunk.

Arguably, if it's optimistic, it isn't "punk." That "low-life" alienation and rage against the system is what makes it punk - the "cyber" part is just aesthetic.

Anticapitalism isn't punk in a world where the anticapitalists win.

solarphunk

This is just my headcanon but I think of the punk in solarpunk as being metatextual: it's not rebelling against its own world, it's rebelling against ours, and against the pervasive pessimism of capitalist realism. I think we need something like that in a time where most fictional futures are dystopian.

Cyberpunk is nothing if not a rebellion against our own world and status quo. Liberal governments are put under the thumb of for-profit corporations, which continue to develop and unleash new technologies on the public without any thought given to the social consequences or any check from the government. At the same time, the inexorable march of technology empowers authoritarian governments and those who rebel are pushed into the sidelines to become social outcasts. Cyberpunk asks us to consider what happens if social development doesn't keep pace with technological development sprinting forward at breakneck speed. Believing social development will keep pace with technology is the essence of solarpunk. Solarpunk is a lullaby.

Solarpunk isn't about believing that social development will keep pace with technological development, it's about imagining what would happen if it did. Its politics are not a fairytale but a call to action to divert course. Cyberpunk says "the future is just gonna be awful" and explores just how awful it's going to be (which isn't rebellion, it's apathy), solarpunk says "imagine what the future could be like if we made it better". It's only a lullaby if you believe there's no hope for change.

Cyberpunk is a call to action: seek social reform before this happens. Solarpunk is the opposite, Solarpunk encourages people to believe that everything will turn out well in the end after green technology saves us from our past follies.

They're both calls to action: avoid cyberpunk, seek solarpunk. We've gotten so much "avoid this" fiction in the past decades that people are just burnt out and actual visions of a positive future have been largely absent since Star Trek, so it makes sense to say "hey, you know all these abstract political ideas that we talk about? this is what the world might look like if we implemented them". Nothing about solarpunk says that it is the default outcome. No reasonable person thinks that it is. It's an ideal to fight for.

The era of collapse fiction like cyberpunk has only really given rise to one political movement: accelerationism. Whose defining trait is "if the world's going to collapse, we should probably hurry it along so we can see if there's anything to salvage afterwards".

Absolutely. Having an ideal to fight for and a vision of a better future are both necessary to move beyond the current system.

> The era of collapse fiction like cyberpunk

Punk was never about collapse, you're confusing that with post-apo.

Also I'm unconvinced about the political potential of solar utopias: they're usually centered on art, and completely avoid the how. So many of them draw nice-looking landscapes that make no sense: glass and steel have to come from somewhere, urban centers can't exist without a periphery, etc. All the issues are carefully avoided and labeled as "negative thinking, which [authors] rebel against".

Totally disagree. Solarpunk is providing an out for the future that cyberpunk warns us about. Hoplessness is endemic amongst the young people in Western socities at the moment. A hopeful vision for the future is something necessary to pervade the public consciousness and create a better future in reality. It honestly happened with cyberpunk already. The aesthetic was taken up subconsciously by designers and engineers and actualised into reality. The same could happen for solarpunk.

A recurring thing in punk/cyberpunk culture is that the existing system is overbearing, and can't be removed. So the punk elements live in the shadow of that system, and thrive in the cracks, the neglected parts. That's usually why (cyber)punk characters are bottom feeders that do stuff that is either not well known, not profitable, or too risky.

Solarpunk usually describe societies where the negative aspects have just disapeared, and been replaced by stuff that the genre proponents enjoy. From what I read, the claim is that the "punk" aspect is the rebellion against negativity. But that's not something we can see in their production.

It seems to me, or I imagine that the solarpunk vision just breads authoritarianism out of its design..

> there’s a -punk there, and not just because it’s become a trendy suffix. There’s an oppositional quality to solarpunk, but it’s an opposition that begins with infrastructure as a form of resistance.”

> Green, sustainable infrastructure as a form of resistance. Technical systems decoupled from the ‘authoritarian technics’ that Mumford warns us about. The embracing of the natural and the technical. This idea is where the solarpunk vision really comes into its own.

Seems to be mentioned in the article why there's a punk suffix. I think it fits. This kind of thinking is inherently subversive to the power structures in place in our societies today.

There are aspects to Iain M Banks' "Culture" novels that might qualify.

Solarpunk only really got started in the last years of Iain Banks' life, and is generally set closer to the near future. I can't really think of much in the way of ecological themes in the Culture novels, and all the special effects in them are powered by antimatter and the "energy grid" between different unverses rather than solar power.

Sure - I meant more "in the spirit of...", re: fundamentally optimistic premises.

The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson is pretty good if quite preachy.

It shows how bleak things have gotten that a book about surviving the coming climate crisis seems fantastical.

The Mars trilogy from the same author is also a good recommendation. Hmm, probably his whole bibliography. Lots of solarpunk elements.

Kim's a dude. Not a big deal. Just thought you'd like to know.

I didn't like the detective-ish novel set in NYC after the climate change crisis but if I'd lived an appreciable time there I might have.

Haha, I just noticed, I got him mixed with another author!

I couldn’t get past the middle. It dragged.

Does it get into the solar tech punkd quasioptimism by the end?

Oh lord does it drag, but yes by the end it's socialism and dirigibles for all.

The Ministry for the Future

Becky Chambers’ name gets tossed about, but I can’t recommend anything in particular.

Maybe I am totally mis-categorizing here, but I would say that Bucky Fuller's "Design Science Revolution" is solarpunk in spirit if not in fact. It has a similar techno-optimism with a radical non-violent revolution as it's stated goal.

> Fuller advocated the design science revolution as an alternative to politics, seeking to optimize planetary resources for the benefit of 100% of humanity. He coined the term synergetics to explain how design science could create rich returns, such as how "energy income" could be harvested from the environment. His main premise was that nature's existing and omnipotent order must be allowed to guide human designs, if they are to survive and thrive as a species. He wrote that humanity was approaching its critical test as a species, in which it would be determined whether or not man was a mistake of nature, or its greatest accomplishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_science_revolution

There's no one book, but his "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" might be a place to start if you're interested.

> The book relates Earth to a spaceship flying through space. Noting the lack of any user manual to help Earthians steward this ship, Fuller offers some reflections, prognostications, and guidance, based on contemporary concepts of linked relationships, that may help in the understanding, management, preservation, and sustainment of this ship. The spaceship has a finite amount of resources and cannot be resupplied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_Manual_for_Spaceship...

Love it: Solar punk is fundamentally nonfiction. Now that’s an optimistic storyline with enough tension to make it readable.

I think it's like making up an alternate future but one that is feasible to reach (as opposed to e.g. Star Trek) or in other words, it's very-near-future hard sci-fi imagining a world that would be fun to live in and then trying to make it a reality. And why not? Aren't we living in a post-historical age? I think the development of quasi-arbitrary niches or fandoms where people make up a fantasy world and live there makes sense. Lifestyle as art. We're presumably free of the strictures and limits that plagued pre-scientific societies, our technology has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, it may not be evenly distributed yet but the future is here.

If you can make your art/life self-sustainable (and you're not hurting anyone) so much the better. Life, rather than imitating art, becomes it. I'm thinking of the Hundred Rabbits folks ( https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/hundred_rabbits.html ), or the hand-made sail-powered Ceiba schooner under construction now in Costa Rica ( https://www.sailcargo.inc/ ) and already under contract to deliver sustainably grown coffee to Canada next year.

B. Fuller is a legend and revolutionary in a lot of ways. Have you read any Sloterdijk? He takes a lot of his ideas on and applies them more strictly to philosophy.

I haven't read him, I'm not much for philosophy I'm sorry to admit.

Fair enough!

anything to stay away from sustainable tech

Can I haz Nukepunq? Wiff mootänntz, räydeeäyshun storrmz, and telepathic brain burtstazz?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com