I feel that people forget the punk in solarpunk. The prevailing interpretation of solarpunk has been trending toward techno-utopianism for awhile now. I would push back on that interpretation. Broken down into its root words, solarpunk would be defined as a non-conformist ethos that obtains its power from the Sun.
The Expanse is definitely punk, and arguably solar. The Rocinante is powered by nuclear fusion, the same process that powers the Sun. I don't think it matters that in The Expanse "mega corporations span the solar system with an extremely extractive business model". That counterpoint is exactly what makes The Expanse punk.
I think there is a lot more work to be done before we go dropping the punk from solarpunk.
Similarly people interpret the 'punk' aspect differently too. If we read your comment correctly you think that very extractive mega corporations can be the punk in a solarpunk story? There are lots of people identifying as solarpunk out there who think that our scene is completely incompatible with what we currently think of as capitalism. There are other solarpunks who see a continued place for enterprise.
What are your thoughts? To paraphrase Starship Troopers - we'd like to know more :)
Sorry, I must not have made myself clear enough. No, I don't think that extractive mega corps are the punk in a solarpunk story. But they (or some other institution or social norm) must necessarily exist for there to be something to punk against. Otherwise, it categorically isn't punk.
So as long as people who think solarpunk is completely incompatible with capitalism are using solar as their leverage point against capitalism, then that's a perfectly legitimate position IMO. If they are simply against corporate capitalism or consumerism for its own sake, well, that's just classic punk.
I do think there is a point (hopefully) where solarpunk becomes unessential, because we have emancipated humanity and our fellow non-human creatures from the forces that enslave them. At this point, what is now being characterized as solarpunk but is actually techno-utopia and biofuturism will have been realized. But we have a lot of punk left to go before we get there!
Thanks for the clarification Cobey and sorry for this slow reply - been a bit under the weather.
It sounds like what the 'punk' in solarpunk stands for is another very interesting debate worth having alongside the question of different shades.
One take by Kiesha Howard, who's done the 1st TED on solarpunk is that the 'punk' is about how much radical change we need to get to the more deliciously sustainable future (6.40 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyuvUPAI0gg)
You raise another very interesting point in how some solarpunk stories seem to imply a sort of green 'End of History'. A problem I have with a lot of utopian fiction is that its idea of perfect means that the only rebels / agitators to it are sort of deviant 'wreckers'.
Personally I think no matter how good a future we create, a democratic and plural one will always need dissenting voices. For me, a solarpunk world worth fighting for is one with free debates and a mix of views.
This is why I think personally there will always be a place for political parties in the future. These would be in a massively more accountable, representative and directly democratic system than we have now.
What do you think? Or anyone else for that matter? Feel free to chip in on our conversation :)
I feel that people forget the punk in solarpunk. The prevailing interpretation of solarpunk has been trending toward techno-utopianism for awhile now. I would push back on that interpretation. Broken down into its root words, solarpunk would be defined as a non-conformist ethos that obtains its power from the Sun.
The Expanse is definitely punk, and arguably solar. The Rocinante is powered by nuclear fusion, the same process that powers the Sun. I don't think it matters that in The Expanse "mega corporations span the solar system with an extremely extractive business model". That counterpoint is exactly what makes The Expanse punk.
I think there is a lot more work to be done before we go dropping the punk from solarpunk.
Thanks for the very thoughtful comment Cobey. We're working on a long article exploring the different shades of solarpunk (https://solarpunkstories.substack.com/p/what-solarpunk-story-shade-are-you)
We agree with you that some shades tend more towards the technophiliac , yet there are others like Cottage Solar which are much more down to earth (https://www.instagram.com/p/CfJ7SiENe5q/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)
Similarly people interpret the 'punk' aspect differently too. If we read your comment correctly you think that very extractive mega corporations can be the punk in a solarpunk story? There are lots of people identifying as solarpunk out there who think that our scene is completely incompatible with what we currently think of as capitalism. There are other solarpunks who see a continued place for enterprise.
What are your thoughts? To paraphrase Starship Troopers - we'd like to know more :)
Sorry, I must not have made myself clear enough. No, I don't think that extractive mega corps are the punk in a solarpunk story. But they (or some other institution or social norm) must necessarily exist for there to be something to punk against. Otherwise, it categorically isn't punk.
So as long as people who think solarpunk is completely incompatible with capitalism are using solar as their leverage point against capitalism, then that's a perfectly legitimate position IMO. If they are simply against corporate capitalism or consumerism for its own sake, well, that's just classic punk.
I do think there is a point (hopefully) where solarpunk becomes unessential, because we have emancipated humanity and our fellow non-human creatures from the forces that enslave them. At this point, what is now being characterized as solarpunk but is actually techno-utopia and biofuturism will have been realized. But we have a lot of punk left to go before we get there!
Thanks for the clarification Cobey and sorry for this slow reply - been a bit under the weather.
It sounds like what the 'punk' in solarpunk stands for is another very interesting debate worth having alongside the question of different shades.
One take by Kiesha Howard, who's done the 1st TED on solarpunk is that the 'punk' is about how much radical change we need to get to the more deliciously sustainable future (6.40 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyuvUPAI0gg)
You raise another very interesting point in how some solarpunk stories seem to imply a sort of green 'End of History'. A problem I have with a lot of utopian fiction is that its idea of perfect means that the only rebels / agitators to it are sort of deviant 'wreckers'.
Personally I think no matter how good a future we create, a democratic and plural one will always need dissenting voices. For me, a solarpunk world worth fighting for is one with free debates and a mix of views.
This is why I think personally there will always be a place for political parties in the future. These would be in a massively more accountable, representative and directly democratic system than we have now.
What do you think? Or anyone else for that matter? Feel free to chip in on our conversation :)
For some reason the link to "The Expanse's Basic Support vs. Basic Income" isn't working. Here it is again >
https://www.scottsantens.com/the-expanse-basic-support-basic-income/#:~:text=Because%20basic%20income%20is%20cash,Basic%20income%20is%20freedom.
Excellent discussion. I hadn’t noticed the environmental elements of The Expanse before