this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
318 points (97.9% liked)
solarpunk memes
6132 readers
52 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think a bunch of cottagecore creators have talked about how the fantasy is the cottagecore life but without the labour. Add to the idea that the aesthetics come straight from America during slavery (or Europe when the rich had servants), and there's a pretty straight line between cottage core and who is mysteriously supposed to be doing this labour. At the very least, the idea of cosplaying rural life while servants actually do the labour has been part of the fabric of cottagecore.
Having said that, it's an aesthetic (unlike Solarpunk which is meant to be a movement), and there are plenty of folk who are into the aesthetic and just like knitting and so on.
That seems to contradict your original statement that cottagecore implies slavery, because if it did then this would be redundant and there would be no need for the "but".
Cottagecore implies labor, yes. If someone is saying they want a cottagecore life without the labor, then they've probably got their head too far up in Wuthering Heights and imagine themselves as English Gentry. That doesn't define cottagecore, though.
Most people who like cottagecore enjoy doing things themselves. Fibercraft of all kinds, soapmaking and candlemaking, baking from scratch. None of that implies slavery, and if you think it does then I would ask where you think those things come from when you buy them from the store.
It's not merely an aesthetic. Just like solarpunk, the aesthetic has been separated from the lifestyle and sanitized, but not in all cases. Homesteading, making things from scratch, is very much a lifestyle.
"Cottage industry" is already a term for people who sell things they make small-scale in their own homes. That seems economically empowering, no? Seems like it would be an integral part to any real solarpunk community, so it makes sense that there's a connection between solarpunk and cottagecore.
Your comment is more or less just lawyering. I'm acknowledging that a lot of people are in it for the aesthetic. You seem to disagree with the meaning of "aesthetic". IMO if you're using it as supplemental to your way of life, it's aesthetic to me, in that it's a hobby, and not political. In fact the closer to political you get, the closer you tend to get to the kind of libertarian, ecofascist, white supremacist ideology. Relevant video.
To re-iterate, I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy cottagecore. Have fun, enjoy, make things, it's great, but it's 100% a hobby as distinct from Solarpunk.
I ain't a lawyer. I presented a rational argument that disagrees with your own. If that's "just lawyering" to you, then I don't want to hear you talk about "ecofascist." If you want to be anti-fascist, great, I'm right there with you, but that means you have to tolerate disagreement when it's presented rationally, at least enough to engage with it rationally, instead of dismissing it with trite little catchphrases like "that's just lawyering."
It seems you're the one who doesn't know the meaning of "aesthetic." Aesthetics are surface-level appearances. If something is purely aesthetic (or should I say solely), then it's superficial. But an aesthetic can go hand-in-hand with function or ideation. An aesthetic can emerge organically.
There's always an aesthetic, so criticizing something for having an aesthetic falls short. Criticize things for having a sanitized aesthetic divorced from the philosophy or politics of the movement it represents, sure. If you go around dressing lile Little Bo Peep but you bought the costume on Etsy because you don't even know how to sew, that's not cottagecore. That's Little House on the Prairie cosplay.
That doesn't say anything about cottagecore as a movement, anymore than someone wearing plastic "steampunk" goggles with useless gears to a convention says anything about "steampunk." It's just an appropriated aesthetic.
That's not what aesthetic means. An amateur golfer wearing sperries, chinos, and a polo isn't doing it just for the aesthetic. He has the aesthetic, sure, and if he wasn't a golfer you could say he's cosplaying as one. But if golfing is just a hobby to him, that doesn't mean he's only doing it for the aesthetic.
If someone mends their own clothing or has a cottage business, that supplements their way of life, yes. That's more than a hobby. It might not be political, but it's certainly more than an aesthetic.
That sounds like an assumption. You can cherrypick a few examples, sure. Someone could also try equating punk with fascism by cherrypicking a few examples of neonazis. It would be a false equivalency, and those neonazis would get their asses kicked if they showed up at most punk venues.
Cottagecore has been integral to black history, whether they know it or not. They might not call it that, but part of poverty is that you learn to make do with what you have, do more with less. You learn to mend your own clothing, make food from scratch. Maybe they don't dress like this is Tudor England, but the underlying philosophy is there, even if they think about it in different terms. So calling it close to white supremacy is kinda wild.
And it's pretty funny that you would share a youtube link right after preaching about politics as a lifestyle...
OK I no longer know what we're talking about but in the interests of not making things more heated than they already are, I'm just not going to respond further.
How about some solar powered robot slaves?
Maybe the entire train of thought for slavery is bad? Like maybe decolonise your mind? Maybe the thing we're aiming for isn't just pastoralism + technology, but ecology. Maybe the goal isn't exploitation at all, but coexistence.
Their word choice was poor, true. I wouldn't call them "robot slaves," because a robot isn't a person and therefore can't be enslaved. Your dishwasher isn't a slave. Your computer isn't a slave. Your printer isn't a slave.
I'm not here to back up a commenter from an .ml instance.
But, "exploitation" doesn't really fit here. How do you "exploit" a robot? It's not a person or even an animal, it doesn't have consciousness or sentience or however you want to define an entity with intrinsic worth deserving of rights.
You can call it a robot maid or a robot butler or a robot servitor or whatever you want. I wouldn't call it a slave or even a serf. But at the end of the day, it's just a robot. And if you run it on solar power and recycle parts to eliminate e-waste, then it can certainly fit with solarpunk.
Ecology is good, yes. Technology can work in harmony with ecology, if it's done right. The problem with our current society is that that's not among its values or priorities, so it designs technology aimed at increasing shareholder value or military dominance. If those values can be changed, and new priorities adopted, then technology can certainly go hand-in-hand with ecology.
But pastoralism will be essential to a solarpunk society, whether you want to admit that or not. Maybe the term comes with baggage because of how it's been implemented in the past, but we're not bound by the past. We can implement new ways of pastoralism.
If you want to support a large population, agriculture is essential. It can be done on a smaller-scale, and non-industrially, especially if you're just supporting a village or a small town. But that requires labor, and if you replace the brunt of that with robots, you free up hands for other tasks. The robots don't even have to be humanoid.
If you want to support entire cities, it's going to take a lot of agriculture. You can do vertical warehouse farming, sure, especially with agribots. But since you've already called out ecofascism, I can only assume the world you envision will have at least 8 billion mouths to feed. Maybe 12 or 15 billion by the time the population levels off on its own without any interventions. How do you plan to feed all those people without exploitation, environmental degradation, and industrial agriculture? I'm not saying you can't, or that you shouldn't try, but pragmatically you'll need to at least have an idea in order for it to be a realistic vision for the future.
Coexistence and decolonization are great, but there are still practical necessities that need to be addressed in order to maintain a society of any kind. "Ecology" is a great start, and a necessary counterbalance to the current state of the world; but long-term, if your vision doesn't include some rendition of "pastoralism + technology," then I just can't imagine how you plan to support a world with an exponentially growing human population...
And if you're not thinking about these things, then solarpunk seems to be very little more than an aesthetic to you.
OK so firstly, when I say "exploitation", I mean in the economic sense. So you "exploit" the land to make a sugar plantation and then the plantation pulls all the resources out of the soil, you take the sugar and leave. This is basically what colonisation was, it was exploitation of people, yes, but also fundamentally of the entire ecosystem, the land, the water, and so on.
Permaculture is in some ways a response to this, to take something already "degraded" and build back. So you take degraded soils, then you invest in those soils over years through a cycle, and you use nature to help you. Then you give nature the first spoils, and you take what remains. It's a fundamentally different way of thinking to pastoralism. While the solarpunk manifesto doesn't mention permaculture, it's pretty clear this is the intent.
Part of the problem with the manifesto is that it expects a lot of prior knowledge. Most people don't know what "decolonialism" even is, so it just becomes a buzzword, but you can tell by the thoughtfulness of the way the manifesto is written that they have the prior knowledge, and expect that of the people reading it.
The meme is about "what if everything white people did was right? Just add some plants to it!" and like, unless they actually contend with the history, that's the kind of solarpunk we'll get.
Exactly, robot already means slave so it means "mechanical slave's slave". So in my grand vision for the future, even the mechanical slaves get their own slaves!
What you have against "machine learning"? FYI I'm not a stalinist.
Anyway, I think pastoralism is fundamentally impossible for the vast majority when we have 12 billion people. We'll want high urban density to save energy and resources on infrastructure. What I personally envision is a single gigantic apartment block that stands along surrounded by miles of mixed fields, food forests and nature. Every apartment is a luxury apartment with an amazing view and you can just walk out and enjoy the communal gardens, or putter around in a small area reserved for you. I believe that would be the most energy and resource efficient way to live in nature. Pastoralism is only possible in a mostly empty country like the USA.
And except using fusion power to create protein or something like rice and wheat grain analogues directly in bioreactors, it will never be efficient to do vertical farming. Converting sunlight into electricity to power grow lights is never more efficient than greenhouses tended to by farmbots.
Holy shit, I hope this is sarcasm because if not you're delusional dude
Just so you know, your instance is run by proud bolsheviks, not AI-researchers...
Okay, that's fine in fiction as long as you don't care about sounding convincing, but in reality providing food, water, utilities, and living space to that many people is a bit more complex than that.
That's not what fusion is. Nuclear fusion is only necessary for changing atoms into different elements. Bioreactors and protein synthesis are chemical reactions, not nuclear. They only change on the molecular level.
It might be less energy efficient, but if you have infinite solar generation that won't matter. Vertical warehouse farming is more efficient in terms of space, water consumption, fertilizer, and most every other externality such as pesticides, harvesting, etc.. It can even be hydroponic or aeroponic, using self-contained and circular systems, and almost every step can be automated.
That won't be the main issue if you have infinite solar power, and farmbots can still be used in vertical warehouse farming. Single-layer greenhouses take up a lot of space though, especially if you need to produce enough to feed several billion people.
I do in fact believe in communism. Just not in Stalinism and that kind of repression. Repression based on "ideological purity" that exists very much outside of socialism too you know? Just because I believe in communism doesn't make me evil or suspicious. And obviously I was joking about robot slaves. Are we done with this shit?
Anyway we don't have infinite solar. Even kite power, the most efficient wind power costs resources and space. I generally do agree that energy isn't really the issue though, it's resources and infrastructure.
If you have a small knee high greenhouse, it will always be more efficient to actually generate chemical energy than vertical farming. Just replace the photovoltaic panel with glass. And for most crops and sensible farming you don't need greenhouses anyway. Shit just grows in the dirt.
Vertical farming calories (to actually feed people) can only be sensible if you have fusion power sometimes in the future. Fission power will eventually run out and is too expensive. Vertical farming is only used for salads and no calorie stuff, but it's fundamentally a dead end as a large scale solution.
Also if you look at the most calorie efficient crops like corn, wheat and potatoes, you need about the size of France to produce enough calories for all 8 billion people. Space is not the issue. With advances in robotics and open source farm bots you can just grow the stuff in the ground without greenhouses and democratize the process.
And about the arcology, instead of sitting in a city and growing and harvesting food or collecting water and and transporting all of it from far away, you just put it in nature and harvest all the basic things directly there using minimal energy. I mean water just falls down from the sky and only needs to be stored. You'd use solar or kite power for energy and grid scale batteries.
There are anarcho-communist instances here, but the .ml admins are literal bolsheviks. As in, authoritarian communists who are notoriously all about that ideological purity and repression. You can find plenty of leftist comms here where people still shit on .ml for being authoritarian.
I'm not saying that's you, because I've met the occasional .ml user who just wasn't aware when they made their account. But by and large, when you see an .ml user, it's usually little better than a troll. Hence the stigma, incase you start noticing a pattern.
I'm not saying you're evil for believing in communism. If we were to discuss Marx philosophically, I'd agree on a lot of points. I generally like Merleau-Ponty's takes on Marxism. But I will continue to shit on any leninists out there when I encounter them.
It's good to know you were joking about the robot slaves, thank you for clarifying. You should know that most people here won't respond well to "jokes" about slavery.
For the rest of your comment, thank you for finally saying something intelligent. You're right, solar isn't literally infinite. Perhaps I should have said "virtually infinite," as once you have the infrastructure in place you can produce as much as it can capture without consuming additional resources, aside from maintenance.
A skyscraper with solar panels covering its southern face can produce a lot of vegetables. Sure, maybe carb-heavy vegetables still need to be done outdoors, but a balanced diet requires more than carbs. And producing vegetables in vertical farms lets you do it much closer to the centers of population, eliminating some of the needs for transportation and storage.
Grains and legumes might still need fields, but those also keep better and you can easily produce enough to store to make it through the following winter while still keeping a surplus. That's harder to do with leafy greens and other vegetables, which are still necessary for balanced nutrition.
"you just put it in nature and harvest all the basic things directly there using minimal energy" is a really bad summary of agriculture, though.
And not everywhere has enough rainfall to produce crops exclusively from catchment, especially now with glaciers melting and rivers going dry. Circular systems that can reuse moisture will be increasingly important as the world heats up.
You need the chemical energy to survive and that requires a lot of light to convert. That is the "critical path". Forget about vegetables, they are not important to solving the food problem.
You're so arrogant but fail to understand the basic engineering and math problems. This is a waste of time.
You act so smug, but you don't seem to realize that warehouse farming is already a thing. This isn't some personal utopian fantasy theory of mine, it's a thing that already exists and can be implemented at a larger scale to solve problems ranging from food deserts, malnutrition, transportation costs, winter spoilage, pests, water consumption, run-off, and habitat destruction due to the agricultural demands of feeding several billion people.
There are specific wavelengths of light that plants use to do photosynthesis. Those wavelengths can be isolated, and there are special LEDs designed specifically for this purpose. They're quite efficient. Or you can use fluorescent lights, albeit they're less efficient than LEDs. You don't need the full spectrum and intensity of direct sunlight, and in fact that can be harmful in hot/dry climates or during droughts, especially as global warming accelerates. Warehouse agriculture has much higher yields than outdoor farming because you can control the climate perfectly while keeping out pests and diseases.
As for fertilizers and compost, they can be used in warehouse agriculture with more efficiency and with less environmental impact than in conventional farm fields. So your chemical energy point is moot.
You talk to me of the engineering and math problems, but clearly you're the one who fails to understand them.
Don't you know how much environmental destruction is currently due to clearing more space for agriculture? And you think that won't get worse as the world population nearly doubles in size, unless we start doing multi-story warehouse farming to feed major population centers?
No, you're just wrong. It is a thing for profitable vegetables or leafy greens or strawberries, but not for producing calories. It will not feed 15 billion people.
With something like 3 kWh of solar irradiance per day per m² you get a pretty abysmal <5% efficiency for producing food calories compared to the 20% efficiency of solar panels. So you quintuple the amount of land you need with solar panels, maybe a little less with higher efficiency indoors. Less with kite power. Again less with fusion power. It's still alot of embedded energy.
I made this table to see how many square meters actually feeds a person, very rough numbers but all I've found. It's less than 250m² in moderate climates to produce 2.2 kcal food. If we stop eating meat and "luxury foods" from around the world we drastically reduce energy costs and reduce land use so we can rewild like 90% of the current arable land.
Conclusion: There is no shortage of land to feed 15 billion people.
And why grow your vegetables and fruits and strawberries far off, or in a bunker, when you can build a million local greenhouses in your community that could additionally serve as food gardens or parks in colder weather?
PS: Solein claims 5% by splitting water into hydrogen using solar power and then using hydrogen to feed single celled organisms. If we ever find a way to split water into hydrogen directly using fusion we'd be set. But until then it's not more efficient than other food algae (also about 5% efficient, which is already great for mostly protein).