One of the reasons I love this subreddit is that I'm introduced to new ideas, which reads to research. In this case an article here about eating Kudzu got me wondering if we might be missing the boat on "invasive" plants in some way.
Here is my latest blog post dealing with exactly that issue: https://citymouseintheboondocks.blogspot.com/2024/04/maybe-we-need-to-rethink-invasive.html
Yeah, it's also a very capitalist mindset. "Think of the benefits of growing this invasive species." So... it's very not punk.
This is a very closed mindset and I'm not attacking you personally. Let me explain why I think so.
You, or anyone really, has the chance to help 100's or 1000's of people would you not do that?
Or would you not do that because what is being asked of you does not fit in with your particular "punk" viewpoint?
We would help those people because the whole idea behind "solar punk" is community is it not? Our job is to save the world.
Rejecting an idea out of hand because it does not fit what ever definition of "punk" you may have is not in the spirit of Solar punk in my opinion. We have to be open to all sort of ideas and solutions.
We take the best, even through we may not agree with them, and move forward with them. This is how real significant change happens.
This is a very bad argument, either they agree with you or they aren’t solar punk?
Plus the whole “Wouldn’t you take the chance to help people” is a bullshit argument. Like the options are either “introduce an invasive species and help people” or “don’t introduce invasive species and let people suffer.” Maybe helping people without destroying the local biome would be a better option?
I’m not certain you understand the difference between invasive and non-native species either. This whole argument is poorly reasoned.
Not at all. Let's look at the original comment that I'm referring to. "Yeah, it's also a very capitalist mindset. "Think of the benefits of growing this invasive species." So... it's very not punk."
In the article I mentioned some benefits of kudzu. For example as a food source and as a green building material. I failed to mention how, once removed, kudzu left the soil rich in nutrients. I mentioned it's use as a green fiber in clothing.
No where did I state what was quoted. No where did I mention using it for capitalist ventures.
Can it be exploited as such? Of course, but so can anything.
Yes, I am a Social Democrat but I've been fighting for environmentalist agenda's and leftist causes well before most of Reddit's readers were born.
Punk is what you do, it's not some "one sized fits all" belief system.
I'll be the first one to admit that the blog post should have been clearer, more precise to avoid confusion. That's on me.
But I'll be damned if someone questions my fight. At the risk of getting an "Ok Boomer." I've been in the trenches a long time and it sickens me when someone appoints themselves a gatekeeper to what is or is not "Punk." Much less solar punk.
I can't help but wonder how many "solar punks" are not riding public transit, or biking or car pooling. I wonder how many still eat meat or have no intention to change to a plant based diet that's better for the environment. I wonder how many vote? How many organize? How many actually garden or plant trees or actually have read Bookchin? Marx? Adams?
When you read Adams you learn that he was highly critical of many aspects of Capitalism; but no one brings that up. Because no one actually reads past the Wikipedia page.
You wanna be punk? You live punk...and you listen and examine ideas from everywhere and everyone because you just might learn something.
That's punk.
Rant over. Down vote me for being honest.
So let me get this straight.
In response to me saying your article strikes me as capitalis, and is therefore not punk you reply.
Rejecting an idea out of hand because it does not fit what ever definition of "punk" you may have is not in the spirit of Solar punk in my opinion. We have to be open to all sort of ideas and solutions.
And in response to someone pointing out your bad faith arguments you in part reply.
I can't help but wonder how many "solar punks" are not riding public transit, or biking or car pooling. I wonder how many still eat meat or have no intention to change to a plant based diet that's better for the environment. I wonder how many vote? How many organize? How many actually garden or plant trees or actually have read Bookchin? Marx? Adams?
Which is it my guy? You claim to hate gatekeeepers and then do some much stricter gatekeeeping yourself.
And to be clear, I was not gatekeeping, I was just saying that your ideas as you articulated them in the article had a capitalist bend to them, which would make them not punk. I was not saying you are not punk, all I was really saying about punk is that "Capitalism is not Punk." If you wanted to refute my tossed off aside comment you should have argued how your article was not capitalist.
I was saying certain ideas were not punk you were saying a lot of people aren't. That is gatekeeping.
I'm not even going to go into all the other rhetorical and logical flaws you've made and poorly constructed bad faith arguments. Why would I take the time.
At the end of the day, my takeaway from this interaction is that you are not a person to be taken seriously.