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
 
(page 3) 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Wait... It's developed countries using up all our resources? Isn't that, like, the opposite of the truth? And technical solutions are a panacea? Is what tech bros have shown us? This seems like a very odd meme

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Giant strawman. Not everyone advocating for degrowth is a primitivist.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Hey, why is making everyone use public transit instead of wastefully having everyone have their own private vehicle treated as "lowering living standards," huh?

Especially in a world where there's so many fucking cars that you can get stuck in traffic for hours and hours. We've rounded the bend where actually having serious public transit, that was moving on every public street every ten minutes, you'd suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement than you currently do with hours and hours of traffic. Public transit literally could be faster than a car in many big cities but people are too hung up on having to be around other people.

But nooooo, somehow freeing people from the logistically stupid nightmare of every human having a car and focusing on transit, we have to call that a "reduction in living standards." Get the fuck out of here.

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

it's just short for living standards that reduce corporate profits.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 months ago (9 children)

That's a false dichotomy in a lot of the comments here

We do both

Carbon capture isn't so we can continue to use fossil fuels. It's because once we get to 0 emissions we still need to draw down the carbon in the atmosphere

An ounce of prevention is almost always worth a pound of cure but we're still going to want that cure because every extra tenth of a degree we can bring the Earth back to normal is going to be worth it

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 195 points 3 months ago (21 children)

I both agree and disagree, because this comic is dangerously vague.

A good example is electric cars. It would be great if everyone switched to electric cars, but it would be even better if we built a city that didn't treat pedestrians, cyclists, and public commuters as second class.

The difference being the latter doesn't let private equity make fat returns.

And yes ofc we can both.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Honestly it would not be better if everyone switched to electric cars. Yes, we should prioritize new cars being electric, but building an electric car is worse than using an existing car all the way to the end of its lifecycle. And yes obviously public transport and infrastructure to promote pedestrians/cyclists is also ideal.

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

Replacing a gas car with an electric car would only be worse than running your current gas car into the ground, if you were buying a brand new EV and were junking your old gas car. A lot of people won’t do that. If you buy a used EV and sell/trade-in the gas car to someone else to use, a new EV isn’t built and someone who can’t afford EV can get your used car.

Obviously pedestrian infrastructure and public transit is preferable if viable, but it isn’t always viable for the average person (at least in the USA/Canada) to switch to those, so having both options is best

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Yeah but that means not everyone is switching to EVs, which is the point of the person you're replying to.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

"Clean" coal, corn based ethanol, hydrogen vehicles, plant a tree offsets, planet scale carbon filters, on and on...

If the owners want me to believe technology can solve the climate problem that is caused by their greed so their greed can continue destroying civilization socially unabated, they need to stop selling climate action policy snake oil to world governments for a quick buck.

And also maybe stop forcing workers who can work at a computer at home to drive into work to maintain the capital value of your commercial real estate as you bark orders from the luxury resort tour that is your life.

Until then, we know not living lives powered by burning ridiculous quantities of dead flora/fauna juice wouldn't further destabilize our only, increasingly uncomfortably hot habitat. We also know that simply stopping won't reverse the damage already done on a time scale humans can perceive.

We are literally turning the habitat of any future humans into 🔥Hell🔥. And if we couldn't make it work here, on easy mode, with enough pre-existing water/air/waste recycling to support millions to billions sustainably, we certainly aren't going to thrive on worlds where a single mistake means oops, everybody dead instantly try again. Im glad of that honestly, as the idea of growing/metastasizing into space and exploiting new world's resources almost makes dollar signs pop out of billionaire's eye sockets, and if thats the core reason they're so eager for us to spread out there, may we die on the vine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

So why is it that everyone pushing for 'reduced living standards' is also always shilling some new technologies to solve that problem?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you go through life believing that people are never intentionally doing harm, you are setting yourself up for nefarious characters. Instead, we should behave as it people are not intentionally doing harm (until inculpatory evidence is demonstrated) while reserving judgement on intentions.

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

Provoking others to consider that exact issue is why I asked the question. :)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 127 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I can't speak for the anarcho-primitivists but I can say I've been alive long enough to understand that a lot of miracle tech is just a cash grab or a way or distracting from the real solutions. Like carbon capture instead of just investing in renewables and zero emission solutions that exist.

Tech bros are intellectually and morally careless and if what they say seems to good to be true, it's likely not.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›