this, folks, is exactly what I’m apprehensive about when it comes to Solarpunk.
The projects described in this article are fundamentally opposed to Solarpunk. Seasteading in its current form is run by Libertarians in Silicon Valley with lots of money envisioning their version of Utopia. Rich people will form communities in the ocean that exploit land-dwelling vagabonds. It is fundamentally classist and anti-communist, and isolationist (in the sense that these communities make an eco-friendly facade, while exporting their exploitative practice.)
But damn, if those cities don’t look Solarpunk. A lot of the aesthetic of Solarpunk thrives on these sorts of green (the color, not the euphemism) environmentally-resistant public spaces and planned spaces. Hell, I could imagine a Solarpunk floating city, given the vision was a teensy bit less isolationist-libertarian.
My apprehension is not a rejection of Solarpunk - I think Solarpunk and what it stands for is awesome. And in many ways, I can’t even say that Solarpunk voices are mistakenly sharing unthoughtful solutions to environmental disasters. Let pieces like these remind us that it’s possible to look Solarpunk and not embody its ideals, and that we should never support a project without examining its politics (not just its aesthetic).
(And let me reiterate that I am not accusing anyone in particular of doing this, or that there even is anyone embracing solarpunk that does this. In some way, this reminder is for myself as much as it is for whoever’s reading this).
This is a great point.
Follow the money and look at the founders, then check the science behind it.
A lot of things that require venture/startup capital are fool’s gold to everyone but the super wealthy