Listening to a recent episode of the Solarpunk Presents podcast reminded me the importance of consistently calling out cryptocurrency as a wasteful scam. The podcast hosts fail to do that, and because bad actors will continue to try to push crypto, we must condemn it with equal persistence.

Solarpunks must be skeptical of anyone saying it’s important to buy something, like a Tesla, or buy in, with cryptocurrency. Capitalists want nothing more than to co-opt radical movements, neutralizing them, to sell products.

People shilling crypto will tell you it decentralizes power. So that’s a lie, but solarpunks who believe it may be fooled into investing in this Ponzi scheme that burns more energy than some countries. Crypto will centralize power in billionaires, increasing their wealth and decreasing their accountability. That’s why Space Karen Elon Musk pushes crypto. The freer the market, the faster it devolves to monopoly. Rather than decentralizing anything, crypto would steer us toward a Bladerunner dystopia with its all-powerful Tyrell corporation.

Promoting crypto on a solarpunk podcast would be unforgivable. That’s not quite what happens on S5E1 “Let’s Talk Tech.” The hosts seem to understand crypto has no part in a solarpunk future or its prefigurative present. But they don’t come out and say that, adopting a tone of impartiality. At best, I would call this disingenuous. And it reeks of the both-sides-ism that corporate media used to paralyze climate action discourse for decades.

Crypto is not “appropriate tech,” and discussing it without any clarity is inappropriate.

Update for episode 5.3: In a case of hyper hypocrisy, they caution against accepting superficial solutions—things that appear utopian but really reinforce inequality and accelerate the climate crisis—while doing exactly that by talking up cryptocurrency.

  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Anyone can define solarpunk as they wish.

    Pretty much, but it still has a general meaning. Just like the word “punk” itself. If Blink 182 said “This is punk”, Minor Threat and The Romones might have something to say.

    All coins are used for speculative investment, there’s very, very little practical use going on.

    This is mostly true now but doesn’t have to be. I’d say a large part of why it’s stuck is because of people’s negative attitudes towards it. Faith in a currency is critical.

    What a silly thing to say. Banking servers wouldn’t use a fraction of the power mining operations do.

    And you know this how? How are you measuring the electricity the modern dollar requires? What about crypto-currencies that don’t use proof-of-work and instead use a consensus algorithm like Raft?

    Sorry mate this one is a bit kooky. Anyone who didn’t drink the koolaid can see it for the ponzi scheme it is.

    No worries, it’s expected that heavily propagandized people view the claim they are propagandized as kooky.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      heavily propagandized people view the claim they are propagandized as kooky.

      you seem like a prime example of this phenomena.

    • fine_sandy_bottom
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Obviously, terms like solar punk are subjective, it’s a bit dramatic to claim “x is not solarpunk” but it’s equally so to declare “you have no right to define solarpunk”. Just imagine they said “x doesn’t align with my values”.

      I’ll concede that crypto doesn’t have to be all speculative. IDK how to get to somewhere useful from here though and I’m not sure it’s possible really.

      Consensus and PoS or PoA or whatever are not the norm. Bitcoin needs to be mined which consumes energy, fiat does not. There’s no question that crypto is wasteful. Again, maybe it’s possible to fix this with some future iteration but that doesn’t seem likely.

      We are all of is “propagandised”, but that doesn’t make my assertions any less valid.