this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
456 points (85.6% liked)

solarpunk memes

2711 readers
19 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

TBF there are far, far too many technological solutions that are “science will save us” but haven’t been fully fleshed out, studied, or require some modest form of unobtainium to work in mass deployment. Also, a huge chunk of those solutions would have to have been implemented 20 years ago, yet haven’t even made it off the proverbial drawing board yet.

IMO solutions need to be implemented now, like wind, solar, especially nuclear power, EV, etc. Yeah, nuclear is temporary, and yes, nothing stays in place longer than a temporary solution, but it’s a known and can be built now rather than yet another 5-15 years of waiting for untried tech solutions. Unfortunately the comic isn’t entirely wrong, we are going to need to lose some things if we want to save ourselves.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, nuclear is temporary, and yes, nothing stays in place longer than a temporary solution, but it’s a known and can be built now rather than yet another 5-15 years of waiting for untried tech solutions.

I guess you could say nuclear power can be built "now". From a certain point of view.

The last nuclear reactor to go online in the United States took 14 years to build - from breaking ground in 2009 to going online in 2023 - at a cost of thirty billion dollars.

And that wasn't even a new nuclear power site, it was a additional reactor added on as an existing site, so planning and permitting and so on were significantly faster then a new nuclear power plant would be.

So yes, we could start the process of building a new nuclear reactor in the United States and commit 30 billion in taxpayer money to it. And after 20 to 30 years that reactor might come online.

Or we could commit 30 billion dollars to subsidizing wind and solar power, and get that power generation online in the next few years, at a significantly lower cost per kilowatt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This doesn’t have to be the binary choice you’re making it. Both can be done. Furthermore I also disagree with the premise that imperfect solutions should be immediately discounted. There is no perfect solution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Both can be done, of course, and we live in a world with limited resources. There's no reason to commit resources to nuclear when those resources can, demonstratively and statistically, be used far more efficiently to implement other options.

It's like saying, yes, I can buy a used car for $5k cash now, or, on the other hand, I could pay $50k to get on the waiting list for a Tesla Cybertruck to be delivered in like five years.

And when I point out that the Cybertruck is less reliable, more expensive, and will leave me without a car for 5 years while I'm waiting, you say "well, why don't you buy the used car and put yourself on the Cybertruck waiting list?"

And I haven't even touched on the moral and environmental issues with nuclear power. I shouldn't have to. New nuclear is clearly the least efficient form of non-emitting power generation in the world. That should be the end of the discussion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Conservatism is a plague that is long overdue for a cure.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They say this and then reject every technological solution that exists. Like wind or solar energy. Trains. Ebikes. The goalposts always get moved to some not yet existant technology so nothing needs to change.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, I don't know exactly what is meant.

But my mind went to meat consumption, which is higher in the developed world, is considered indicative of a high standard of living, and, in my opinion, is best addressed not by lab-grown meat (or other technological solutions), but by reduced consumption (the reduced living standard).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The idea that eliminating meat reduces your standard of living is a preconceived bias. It is not an accident you believe that. You are being manipulated. If you investigate you will find that people who do it report improvements in their standard of living, not reduction. Meat is simply a way of refining cheap, sustainable, healthy plants into scarce, expensive, toxic and addictive processed food, by abusing the bodies and minds of sentient creatures. It is literally killing you and everyone you know. The more meat you eat, the younger you die and the more diseases you experience. Nearly all the top ten killers of humans on Earth today, and especially in the Western world, is caused by an animal-based diet: heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, and more. Heart disease, diabetes, AND RECENTLY ALZHEIMER'S have all been reversed in massive clinical trials, by doing little more than eliminating toxic animal products from the diet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I would argue that reduced meat can be either the result of a lower living standard or a higher one. This is the issue a lot of people on each side refuse to see, a higher standard of life can be more efficient with systems either technological or social which make it possible.

Really we need a blend of each, yes the techphobes are right we don't want to live in battery farms where only efficiency matters but also we don't want to live in the drudgery of a Neolithic existence. We need to identify and adopt systems that allow a good quality of life and enables diversity of thought and lifestyle, tech can make this possible but is unlikely to do it alone.

Yes it's difficult but we need social growth, that means people tying new things and demonstrating them to the world. We should be using our absurd luxury and wealth here in the developed nations to help develop solutions everyone can use to live a good life, instead of flexing fast cars and designer clothes we should be spreading knowledge of healthy food, useful educational and organizational tools, community project structures which enable people to work on shared goals and mutually beneficial platforms...

We have a very privileged platform in the world, we should use it to show that even the richest most well educated, traveled and socialised people prefer a low or no meat diet.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The classic fallacy that industries have sold us over the past decades that technology would solve all our problems. So funny. They are doing the same again with AI

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

The thing is they have solved an endless litany of problems and improved life for everyone on a radical scale thousands of times, but then people get born into the world snd never see those problems - have you ever even had to worry about milk souring let alone storing produce to last the winter? Have you ever even been attacked by a predator? That was a way of life for our ancestors before technology, the concept of clean drinking water didn't even come close to meaning the same thing but their version of it was a daily struggle which often went unmet regardless.

Go back in time before the industrial revolution and ask.a serf what their problems are, I bet.you nor I have ever faced a single one of them. It'd be fun to listen to the conversation you explaining that politicians are corrupt and avocados are expensive, he doesn't know what they are but he says he's thy literal property of a baron that doesn't even pretend to care what he thinks and mice got into his grainstore so some of his kids will starve this winter.

Tech had made your life significantly better and the coming wave of ai tools is going to make it much better again and allow things you never even imagined possible like localized food networks and community based industry, you'll use it all snd move on to complaining asteroid mining is over hyped or whatever comes next

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I offer myself up for this. I already lowered my living standards years ago and I am quite comfortable with it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

Oh great, degrowth discourse this should go smoothly

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago

the fuck is this shit doing in a solarpunk community lmao, this is just made up nonsense you'd see on facebook

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Plot twist: The technological solution requires resources of five earths.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We live much more efficiently than we ever have, there aren't enough trees and wild game for us to live like the Neolithic - the non tech solution is mass genocide or total ecological destruction of the planet. Not really solutions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

They are very much the solutions our „advanced civilization” is heading (and accelerating) towards.

Remember, the ones on top needed us healthy to report to work on monday. Because they wanted a bigger yacht. Once there is no work, or monday we’re all just wasting oxygen and they won’t shudder sending us to wars or letting us all die off.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

That’s what quantum computers are for. We can use parallel universes to eliminate lag in our bitcoin calculations. It’s like we’re stealing their money.

load more comments
view more: next ›