this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
67 points (92.4% liked)
chapotraphouse
13929 readers
795 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So idk anything about solar punk, but I did an image search for it and about half the images have people in them and none of it seems particularly fascist?
Half of these pictures, if you were to politically analyze them in the context of solarpunk, are somehow quaint little farms but also wind power which if you'd cared about saving the earth is definitely not something you'd do. Optimally you'd want very dense urban enviroment mostly if not all to make sure as much nature as possible can be untouched and thriving.
Just a heads up that the idea of nature = no humans, or rather, the divide between human spaces and "natural" spaces is also firmly rooted in white supremacy and colonial ways of looking at land and its role in production. Indigenous and global south people, even global north people in some cases have thrived in rural and wild environments while inhabiting them and participating in the biodiversity. The problem isn't people, it's extractivism. And if ecosystems will ever have a chance to recover it will be through regenerative and conscious practices, not by letting fields fallow and forests do their thing while humans live sequestered "outside" of nature.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the principle but what kind of population numbers did those indigenous tribes have? We've got 8,2 billion people on this thing now.
Picking up the criticism about solarpunk here; if your future only works after most people are dead for some reason or another it's not exactly utopian or even good.
This is a lack of rigorous thinking, from someone I presume is capable of debunking the Black Book of Communism.
For the vast majority of middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries, the total fertility rate is below the replacement level, and even below 1.6 in the imperial core. After a century of this, we're back to a world population of 2 billion people, a figure that no one would argue is inherently overpopulated. Even if the TFR harmonically regresses to 2.05, we would be fine. Communism could "kill" 5 billion more people and be the most peaceful world-system in modern history.
Those indigenous peoples had 100 million people just in North America, which is proportional to about 600 million people globally.
great, that only leaves about 7,9 billion others to account for then
are you positioning the solar punk five years from now or 105 years from now? we (well, some of our progeny) could return to 1920s population numbers over a long period of time by individual reproductive choices without any mass killing or government policy. there's only a missing population if you think the art is depicting next week.
Please read the whole comment and follow the math, it's not that complicated.