this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
132 points (94.0% liked)

Solarpunk

6937 readers
46 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The rise of doomers, preppers, and antinatalists on the Left reveals something deeper than the hollow posture of rebellion: a collapse of belief in tomorrow. A Left that chants “No future” isn’t just demoralized — it’s unserious, misanthropic, and bound to lose.

Tldr: How do you inspire people to work for a better tomorrow if you don't believe tomorrow can be better? Trump and the American right have a vision of a future America that they claim will be great and glorious. The American left - and the global left - have lost sight of the future entirely. Instead of promising a bright future, they merely seek to endure the crises of the present - and some on the left have given up even that.

The article speaks to the desperate need for hope - for a clear, compelling, leftist vision of the future to serve as a guiding light for left-wing activists and politicians.

And hey, what political slash environmental slash aesthetic movement focused on a hopeful future just got its instance back up?

(Welcome back, everybody!)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 23 points 3 weeks ago

I definitely agree we have an imagination problem, but I don’t think it’s limited to ‘the left.’ I actually think the issue lies squarely with (classical) liberalism and the values it instills. Any time someone with an optimistic vision starts to voice it people pile on with 500 reasons it’s impractical. People have a very “we can’t do better or we already would have” mindset. People also want there to be a general solution that works mechanically for everyone.

As mundane as it sounds I think the key really is fostering a sense of self-determination in our communities. Encouraging people to use their own resourcefulness to solve problems they see in their communities and in the world.

This isn’t limited to small or local problems, Instead of working for google tech bros could be building logistics programs to allow people to organize global food distribution through piecemeal contributions of food and transportation.

Things are the way they are because they were built that way under specific incentives and the people in power do not want to lose it. This is not inevitable or the best we can do. If we change our priorities and stop letting ‘the market’ act as a proxy for what we want to see, there is plenty of room for optimism about the future.

People are reasonable for not wanting to bring children into the world during a famine. Let’s plant some trees and pull eachother up and build communities people can imagine their kids thriving in first.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Even the best path out of the current situation involves us fighitiny the current rise in fascism around the world, and even an optimistic prediction for the path of climate change is harrowing.

I'm not putting a kid through that.

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The founder of the Antinatalism International, Anugraha Kumar Sharma, argues that “there is absolutely no hope whatsoever in this world.”

Well, that's hard to argue against. I might disagree, but I cannot artificially give him any hope, even if he wants some.

For some, the progressive embrace of antinatalism might just be a reaction to the pronatalism espoused by the Right. Because Vice President J. D. Vance wants you to have more children, the only natural reply is that we ought to have none.

Not for me. They can want all they want, but to consider children, I imagine I would need to find a society relatively free of strife, a society with lower risk. I would need to feel somewhat secure in my own future, because you have to raise children for a hefty amount of time. Most importanly, I'd have to find someone who'd like to do this together.

Some creatures respond to environmental stress by breeding earlier and faster, and trying to do that more desperately. I cannot find such a response in my own "code". I respond to environmental stress by saving resources to overcome hardship, and focusing effort to defeat the source of hardship. If that means a decline in population by 1.7 people, so be it.

I think that in the modern times, more people have started thinking this way. Having children is expensive and can effectively put you below the poverty line, and stop you from pursuing goals, whatever they are.

I'm not even anti-natalist. I'm just not interested in reproduction - precisely because I still have a future that I might influence for the better - but not if I waste my resources on reproduction.

Also, I think a scarcity of humans might actually cause society to value humans more. In the Middle Ages, when the plague reduced populations, serfs were able to obtain better conditions and break the pattern of slavery in many lands. Feudal lords struggled because their vast empty lands could not be managed by their dwindling crew - someone could till a field or hunt game without paying taxes or asking for permission out there. Of course, this pattern might not apply in modern times, however.

the global democratic left has been incapable of developing an economic agenda that looks beyond the next election cycle.

Not sure if I can agree. Over here, the agenda looks pretty clear. Achieve progressive taxation. Achieve higher taxation of capital than labour. Achieve lower taxation of worker-owned companies. Achieve universal health insurance. Beyond the economic, achieve a governing system not disproportionately influenced by the wealthy. Preferably, achieve all this without violence.

(and reaching those goals is prevented by the disproportionate propaganda capability of the economic right, mostly financed by the wealthy)

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Hmm, I find that argument not very convincing. Except for some online nutcases no one on the left seriously argues for voluntary human extinction 🙄

It is rather the lack of long term planning that brought us to the current situation that the planet has way more humans than it can easily sustain.

Trying to organize a soft landing by slowly reducing the population, especially in areas that have a high resource use foot print, seems rather like long term planning to me. And it also makes it easier to welcome others from regions that will likely become uninhabitable due to climate change in the medium term future.

In addition, I find it rather hilarious that someone seriously thinks humans procreate because of long term thinking 😅

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

In addition, I find it rather hilarious that someone seriously thinks humans procreate because of long term thinking 😅

I mean, kids are a lifetime investment. Most people think about whether they can afford to feed and educate their kids over the next few decades, and what kind of life the kids will have after that. In countries without social safety nets, children are often the only retirement plan. I think the decision to have kids (or not) is the longest term planning the average person will ever do.

I'm not saying it's necessarily good planning, but it's certainly thinking long term.

With that being said, I think this article isn't claiming not having kids is a problem in itself. It's a symptom of the real problem - despair for the future.

People choosing not to have kids for positive reasons? Because they have a vision of the future with a lower population and choose to live their values? Great! No problem there.

But when people choose not to have kids because they think the world is collapsing around them, that they can't give children a good life, that there's no hope for the future and it would be immoral to expose a child to the coming tribulations - those decisions are made because people give up on the future.

The despair is the problem - the decisions made out of despair are just the symptoms.

And it's hard to motivate people to work for a better world now when they have no hope for a better world in the future. If we're all doomed anyway, why not burn all the oil you want and let the fascists take over?

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

People really believe this thinly veiled eugenics argument?

There is plenty of resources to support humanity. The issue is solely in our societal structures and our distribution of those resources causing almost half of everything we produce to become waste because it profit couldn't be extracted from it.

We could cut most of our production, reducing our environmental harm, redesign our cities so they are not sprawling wastelands of parking lots and empty lawns, and there would be plenty enough to go around. That's real long term planning we need to have.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

The problem is not that we do not have the resources, but rather the way humans chose to use them. Multiply that by 8 billion and we get a problem, although realistically the bigger problem are the top 2-3 billion or so that control so many resources.

In a world with a significantly lower population, the planet could absorb the issues we cause much better.

I don't see how this fact has anything to do with eugenics 🤷

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

There is plenty of resources to support humanity.

I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we'd need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.

I think we shouldn't use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans. Our species has experienced a massive population explosion and is at peak numbers.

Usually this kind of events are followed by a hurtful population crash. It seems considerably better if growth ends due to a (subconscious?) decision to stop expanding, rather than a war for remaining resources.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we'd need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.

The back of the envelope calculation says if everybody on Earth lived like an average American we'd need the resources of about four Earths to cover it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

That being said, from the same source, if everyone on Earth lived like an average Indian we'd only use half the Earth's resources and could support twice as many people.

So it's not about the number of people - it's about the standard of living those people have and the resources they use.

I think the most effective way forward is more efficient and sustainable lifeways - if the richest countries learn to consume less, if people around the world get access to better technology and better institutions to raise their standard of living without raising their resource consumption.

And it's interesting to note, the better off people are, the fewer children they tend to have. If we improve people's lives worldwide, a steadily declining population will be a natural side effect.

An incredibly difficult goal, of course, but worth pursuing.

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think we shouldn't use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans.

Good thing no one said to do this. I don't appreciate bad faith reframing of my argument.

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It was meant to be humorous framing, given the impossibility of making humans from magma or the iron core. :)

[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

From my perspective it is a disingenuous, bad faith framing of my position meant to exaggerate it and mock it as if it was absurd.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

I'm one of those doomers. Looking at the science, at the data and the new findings that come out every year, it's not even really debatable that all of civilization will collapse within the next century.

Genuinely. That's where we're at.

1.5C is dead. 2C is dead. 3C is on its last legs and we are on track for 8-10C avg temp rise globally. The oceans will be practically dead acidic wastes by then, the insect populations will collapse and anything that needs pollinated will follow suit.

I am all for dying in the streets defending what we have from fascists and preventing them from making the last few decades we have exponentially worse, but I think it's wrong to claim that we can have a good future.

We can perhaps save a few million more people by the end of the century so that the total human population will be maybe near a billion.

That's the best I can offer. Mass starvation and death. Sorry

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

This generation grew up watching the rich get richer and their families get less and less. They watch the adults around them work 50 hours a week for the privilege of renting an apartment, no vacations anywhere, barely able to afford healthcare.

Do they have it wrong?

[–] rhadamanth_nemes@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

I've never understood why breeding exponentially forever is somehow expected to work... Like infinite expansion capitalism, it's ignoring the fact that things are finite.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'm an antinatalist. It's a different mindset, and it's focused on "not losing," i.e. by not playing the game at all. This is in contrast to the more common mindset of focusing on "playing to win." In the fight-or-flight paradigm, it is choosing flight. I'd be curious to know what personality traits other antinatalists have, include their fear response.

These futureless left, whether consciously or not, are going on a birthstrike. This is a combination of a protest but also opting out of the future if things don't change for the better.

You may disagree and/or dislike it, but that's my take on what it is about.

[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

I just figure if I do have kids, there are very few things that will be better than I have now. It's not really fear just I don't want my kids to live through the worst weather/shortages/pollution ever + companies being better than ever at trying to manipulate people and suck their life away.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's also that having a family steeply increases your exposure to an unfair system that you don't want to be even more of a slave to.

[–] aaron@infosec.pub 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just because you don't have hope doesn't mean that you won't try to make some measure of difference. You can still play the hand you've been dealt, and making the outcome slightly less bad is still something to put effort into.

[–] aaron@infosec.pub 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Then again, maybe the clue is in the name and I should just block.

If that's how you want to be, then I'll do you a favor and solve your dilemma for you.

Bye!

[–] jeffhykin@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think even worse than "no future" is no change. Biden and Kamala pretty much ran on "we are not stupid (like Trump) otherwise no change" and Trump ran on "I'm going to change everything".

It seems the left is scared to propose/pitch radical change.

Not that radical change is necessarily good (see Argentina's historical flip-flop from radical left, right, libertarian, and authoritarian) its just that belief of change is required to believe in a better future.

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree. Biden's presidency was the biggest lost opportunity of my lifetime for exactly that reason.

FDR responded to a similar global challenge - the Great Depression - by transforming the American government to serve the needs of struggling Americans - and the American people rewarded his courage and vision with overwhelming support when he ran for his second term.

Biden? Barely tried to improve America. And everything he tried failed. He couldn't even reduce student loan payments. And when Harris had the opportunity to break with him and fight for her own vision of what America could be, she either had no vision of her own or was too afraid to fight for it.

The American "left" is terrified to promote anything more than a return to the Obama-era status quo. But if they don't find their vision and courage the United States is guaranteed one party Republican rule for another generation.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Its weird to have to defend Biden but he did get some things done, the way you are characterizing his record isn't really accurate. I would expect that if Biden had FDRs numbers in Congress he would have been a lot more successful too. Not that his term wasn't also a lost opportunity and full of failures, but not everything failed. There's a whole bunch of people who don't owe student loans now for example, even if they weren't all forgiven due to the courts, etc.

[–] millie@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'll always remember that time when Obama was up on stage taking questions from the Internet after having literally run on change as a campaign slogan and when someone asked about legalizing marijuana he literally laughed as if that would be absurd. And this is someone who did change quite a lot. The Democratic party's mainstream has been afraid of radical change for a long time, even though it's been demonstrated over and over again that it's what brings energy to the party and gives them the ability to move the ball.

I really hope this past election makes them a little less cautious and a little less centrist. We really can't have our representatives just sitting on their hands waiting for the tide to wash away any and all progress. We have to keep pushing forward so when we do take a step back we don't lose everything all at once.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Great article. I agree with most of the author's points. I find doomers very annoying and problematic. Why even argue that position? Why try to convince people to join you wallowing in misery? I think they just want to confirm to themselves that nothing can be done so they can continue doing nothing.

One other question: It's hard to deny that this problem is hitting the West and Western influenced countries quite hard. What's it like in China? They're building for the future and talking about and working on tech that could help everyone. Are people in China largely optimistic?

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nope. China is very pessimistic at the moment.

Lots of... not wanting kids even if not actual antinatalism. Due to no free time, competition for resources, and people having no ability to live for themselves before 24 or so. High costs as the assumption of 2 parents 1 child is baked into the costs of everything, from kids' activities to the education system.

The place seems to be aware something big is coming, and no one seems optimistic. All the chatter about growth, new tech, hasn't been felt in people's lives or incomes yet, in fact the inverse as businesses close up and everyone becomes a Didi driver (滴滴司机) or a Meituan deliverer (外卖哥/姐) and that's the same gig economy rubbish we have, only with fewer rights and protections.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ugh, that's a bummer, but thanks for the insight

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 3 weeks ago

You're welcome. It's a big place and never gets a fair voice in Anglophone media. Alas, it's still no utopia or shining beacon.

But all the same, for a country that has spent its whole existence staring down the barrel of the USA, the PRC has done well for itself. Raised living standards according to UN/World Bank metrics. Drastically reduced unintended (wording due to one child policy) deaths of children.

But the Cultural Revolution did a number on society that helped shape it into the nation of alienated neoliberal subjects it is today.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago

i read about newly discovered plants, and animals, everytime it always end up they are already threatened, especially plants that are very niche.

[–] ShotDonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

We are neurologically hard wired to prioritize information that evokes fear. Fascism thrives on that fact and was kept in place for some time by human intelligence to cut through quite some bullshit. 'Flooding the zone with shit' made the layer to cut through so thick it's harder and harder to do so. AI and social media algorithms is flooding the zone with shit on unknown dimensions. We all need to digitally detox and go for classic, analogous comminity building. Like species homo has done for 2 million years.

[–] AccountMaker@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago

Great article! I agree that the left needs to better present its vision to the world, both as a concrete political proposal, as well as in general popular culture, things like art and stories that show the future.

I'm not sure if this is a thing already, but maybe monthly events could be organized here for reading and discussing specific solarpunk novels, competitions on creating solarpunk art etc? It would be one way to strenghten a specific image of the community that could be used to manifest ourselves to the world.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

IMO a lot of the doomer garbage comes from people who are disconnected from nature completely. I think they live in bubbles of digital doomscrolling and never literally touch grass. Because if you get outside of oppressive concrete urban environments and visit the forest you will see nature persisting along just as it always has. And as we are part of nature, we can also persist along with it.

The technology of modern living is also reason for hope. With some effort individuals can live independently without the need for municipal utilities of any kind, and enjoy the freedom that only self-sufficiency can provide. But people seem to be very complacent these days and unwilling try anything that seems hard. Meanwhile we have all the information of the world at our fingertips for easy access to learn how to do anything. We can each accomplish almost anything - with the info on the Internet I have been able to learn and do anything I wanted to do.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Where are all of the insects and small animals in those forests? In many places around the world the populations of these creatures have decreased by 75% over the last 50 years. That grass you went out to touch is an invasive species that we have cultivated so widely that it is eradicating the breeding grounds of insects.

I know that you think your personal experience is more telling than decades of research and data by scientists but nature is not 'persisting' in the way you claim. It is slowly dying.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›