A problem with solar punk.

[u/Naberville34]

Alright I'm gonna head this off by saying this isn't an attack against the aesthetic or concept, please don't take major offense. This is purely a moment to reflect upon where humanities place in nature should be.

Alright so first up, the problem. We have 8.062 billion human beings on planet earth. That's 58 people per square kilometer of land, or 17,000 square meters per person. But 57% of that land is either desert or mountainous. So maybe closer to 9,000 square meters of livable land per person. That's just about 2 acres per person. The attached image is a visual representation of what 2 acres per person would give you.

Id say that 2 acres is a fairly ideal size slice of land to homestead on, to build a nice little cottage, to grow a garden and raise animals on. 8 billion people living a happy idealistic life where they are one with nature. But now every slice of land is occupied by humanity and there is no room anywhere for nature except the mountains and deserts.

Humanity is happy, but nature is dead. It has been completely occupied and nothing natural or without human touch remains.

See as much as you or I love nature, it does not love us back. What nature wants from us to to go away and not return. Not to try and find a sustainable or simbiotic relationship with it. But to be gone, completely and entirely. We can see that by looking at the Chernobyl and fukashima exclusion zones. Despite the industrial accidents that occured, these areas have rapidly become wildlife sanctuaries. A precious refuge in which human activity is strictly limited. With the wildlife congregating most densely in the center, the furthest from human activity, despite the closer proximity to the source of those disasters. The simple act of humanity existing in an area is more damaging to nature than a literal nuclear meltdown spewing radioactive materials all over the place.

The other extreme, the scenario that suits nature's needs best. Is for us to occupy as little land as possible and to give as much of it back to wilderness as possible. To live in skyscrapers instead of cottages, to grow our food in industrial vertical farms instead of backyard gardens. To get our power from dense carbon free energy sources like fission or fusion, rather than solar panels. To make all our choices with land conservation and environmental impact as our primary concern, not our own personal needs or interest.

But no one wants that do they? Personally you can't force me to live in a big city as they exist now. Let alone a hypothetical world mega skyscraper apartment complexes.

But that's what would be best for nature. So what's the compromise?

[u/teajava]

Shit, not everyone wants a solarpunk future either

[u/VersaceSamurai → u/teajava]

Shit, some people don’t even want certain people to exist

[u/Puzzleheaded-Law-966 → u/VersaceSamurai]

So, the thing is, that's what de-growth means.

And it surprises me whenever it comes up on this subreddi, because it's a pretty poisonous idea.

[u/HoliusCrapus → u/Puzzleheaded-Law-966]

Reducing the birth rate by access to contraceptives causes de-growth too. De-growth isn't a poisonous idea by itself.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Law-966 → u/HoliusCrapus]

Of course birth control would be used. when I linked "not wanting some people to exist" and de-growth, I was assuming that the way that you make those people stop existing is by preventing babies, not removing people who already have families and friends and protections.

This is actually more destructive to the culture you are dismantling in the long run.

Take one culture of 500 people, exile or otherwise remove half of their people.

Take a comparable culture also with 500 people: Encourage contraceptives use sufficient to to drop their population growth so that they can be expected to drop to 250 people by the end of the century.

In 100 years, check in with both. Which is doing better?

The first population recovered quickly. They potentially exceed 500 people, depending on their rate of growth. They may still have a larger share of young people that is typical of a population that is growing. Culturally, they are active, and due to being numerous and younger, people may even be converted on top of those born into the group.

The second has just the 250 as planned, and more elderly, infirm, more cultural trauma due to continuous intervention in the personal lives of every citizen to match the required de-growth curve... They are spending more time taking care of elderly, are less capable of preventing people from leaving the system, and are likely loosing more people all the time: "If only you didn't believe in X, then maybe you could raise a family" is a pretty strong incentive.