Edmond Dantesk
True. But there has been experiments, especially around melting currencies (is that the correct English name ?).
A recent example (in French, but I guess automatic translators are good enough now ?) : https://monnaie-libre.fr/
Money is not inheritly bad, just think of it as a tool to make accounting easier
Is it though ? Not saying it is inherently bad, but in itself it forces a market value on everything - which is a rather limited proxy to usage value. In that sense money in itself is not neutral, not “just a tool”, as it shapes how exchanges are made in a society.
You are passing a lot of assumptions as facts here.
But the problem is: the world won’t stop polluting, won’t stop growing its economies, won’t stop expanding.
Unless you are a time traveler, this is a belief, not a fact.
Even if the US and Europe cut their emissions and slow down, the developing world, India and China and Nigeria and Kenya, and so on, won’t. They see the standard of living in the West, they think their people deserve to live just as well, and they see we got there through unchecked resource consumption within a capitalist economic system, and how the hell do we have the right to tell those countries to stay poor for the sake of the environment when we got rich by fucking the environment?
Here you are assuming a lot about how those countries / populations might analyze the situation. Also, that the path we followed to develop is the only one, and that they are bound to follow our example. That’s quite a colonialist point of view.
So the only things that will save the world are globally organized, probably UN coordinated, technological solutions to mitigate the damage done by unchecked capitalist expansion, because we can’t stop capitalism.
If you start from the premise that there is no alternative to capitalism, that this rather young form of social organization is the end of human history, I can understand why you reach that conclusion. But don’t assume that your line of reasoning is the only logical conclusion one can reach.
We shouldn’t be so angry that we think something as broad/simple as a marketplace has no use, and should not even be attempted, in creating a sustainable society worth living in.
It looks like you are conflating market economy and capitalism. These are two different concepts, and the first one predates the second by a few millenia.
So in the end the question was about capitalism but you argued in favor of market economy.
That could be an approach, but as a leftist I would argue that leftist ideologies are not necessarily ecology-friendly. For example the soviet economy was not capitalist but very extractivist and destructive nonetheless.
I like the notion of conviviality as defined by Ivan Illich. A technique is convivial if it serves humankind and not a small elite. It is convivial if I can choose to live without it …
Hey there. New member, freshly registered.
I would say that the biggest threat to a solarpunk community like this one is greenwashing. More specifically, I’m thinking about techno-solutionism - a devious form of magical thinking that lets us think that tech is going to solve everything.
It is okay to share news about the latest technological advancement, to marvel at the ever lowering price of solar energy. But if it leads people to think that we can just replace fossil with another energy source and keep our societies and economic structures as is, this is toxic.
And I get that if you get enthusiastic about some tech and post it here, but then someone starts raining on your parade in the comment section, that person could easily be disqualified as a doomer.
How can we foster a sane debate about technology in this community ? Honestly I don’t know, but I’m eager to try!
All the best,
