![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
via https://ift.tt/2JpxEut
darkersolstice:
kintatsujo:
shiisiln:
watsons-solarpunk:
xenozerrez:
solarpunknetwork:
thewritingsquid:
solarpunknetwork:
txwatson:
I keep seeing people asking ‘is solarpunk really punk?’ because it’s too happy and optimistic and stuff
and I’m picturing a perfect moment in a solarpunk community — the neighbourhood mayor standing with a shit-eating grin on her face when the cops come and cut them off from city power, and nothing turns off
This is my absolute favorite example of how solarpunk is punk. Also, Detroit (and a lot of other places) could probably use something similar for water. Especially in places where it’s illegal to harvest rainwater. I dunno, maybe water tanks cleverly designed as yard art?
Like… yeah it’s happy and optimistic, but my view of solarpunk at least is in complete defiance of many capitalist ideals so if that’s not punk … ‘Punk’ isn’t edgy, dark and gritty. Not to me. Building a society completely based on renewable resources, accessibility for all, and constant sharing is a big fuck you to the current system if you ask me.
Exactly. Near future solarpunk especially requires rebelling against the current system. Punk is about defiance (at least that’s what it’s come to mean colloquially). Defiance doesn’t have to be destruction and violence and grit, it can look like stubborn creation and community building and rejecting many of the dominant system’s values.
Wait. Why would harvesting rainwater be illegal?
There’s an interpretation of the concept of property that says if something has value, then someone should be getting paid for it. Despite being flatly absurd and riddled with obvious logical flaws, this has been one of the major philosophies of property in the US, in some contexts (including water) for over a hundred years. This Washington Post article gets into it in detail.
According to this logic, if there are water suppliers in a region, then they’re entitled to money when people get water. Collecting rainwater for yourself gets around that, so, in this concept of property, it’s a form of theft.
There have also been legal battles over people growing food in their lawns, generating their own electricity, etc. If you’re looking to extricate yourself from the systems wherein you have to serve the interests of specific wealthy people to survive, many parts of the western world are ready to use the force of government intervention to stop you.
I feel like a big chunk of the ‘dark, gritty’ aesthetic punk is associated with came as a reaction to the bright, glamorous ‘American Dream’ imagery and patronizing ad campaigns of the 50s.
But now that we’re being sold “The future is bleak and dirty and there’s nothing you can do about it,” being optimistic and cheerful is the most punk and rebellious thing you can do
This is an extremely well put point.
@wearepaladin
(Your picture was not posted)
darkersolstice:
kintatsujo:
shiisiln:
watsons-solarpunk:
xenozerrez:
solarpunknetwork:
thewritingsquid:
solarpunknetwork:
txwatson:
I keep seeing people asking ‘is solarpunk really punk?’ because it’s too happy and optimistic and stuff
and I’m picturing a perfect moment in a solarpunk community — the neighbourhood mayor standing with a shit-eating grin on her face when the cops come and cut them off from city power, and nothing turns off
This is my absolute favorite example of how solarpunk is punk. Also, Detroit (and a lot of other places) could probably use something similar for water. Especially in places where it’s illegal to harvest rainwater. I dunno, maybe water tanks cleverly designed as yard art?
Like… yeah it’s happy and optimistic, but my view of solarpunk at least is in complete defiance of many capitalist ideals so if that’s not punk … ‘Punk’ isn’t edgy, dark and gritty. Not to me. Building a society completely based on renewable resources, accessibility for all, and constant sharing is a big fuck you to the current system if you ask me.
Exactly. Near future solarpunk especially requires rebelling against the current system. Punk is about defiance (at least that’s what it’s come to mean colloquially). Defiance doesn’t have to be destruction and violence and grit, it can look like stubborn creation and community building and rejecting many of the dominant system’s values.
Wait. Why would harvesting rainwater be illegal?
There’s an interpretation of the concept of property that says if something has value, then someone should be getting paid for it. Despite being flatly absurd and riddled with obvious logical flaws, this has been one of the major philosophies of property in the US, in some contexts (including water) for over a hundred years. This Washington Post article gets into it in detail.
According to this logic, if there are water suppliers in a region, then they’re entitled to money when people get water. Collecting rainwater for yourself gets around that, so, in this concept of property, it’s a form of theft.
There have also been legal battles over people growing food in their lawns, generating their own electricity, etc. If you’re looking to extricate yourself from the systems wherein you have to serve the interests of specific wealthy people to survive, many parts of the western world are ready to use the force of government intervention to stop you.
I feel like a big chunk of the ‘dark, gritty’ aesthetic punk is associated with came as a reaction to the bright, glamorous ‘American Dream’ imagery and patronizing ad campaigns of the 50s.
But now that we’re being sold “The future is bleak and dirty and there’s nothing you can do about it,” being optimistic and cheerful is the most punk and rebellious thing you can do
This is an extremely well put point.
@wearepaladin
(Your picture was not posted)
