Solarpunk doesn't have prescriptions about how things are grown

Yeah, but this is my exact point - it's not rigorous, it's just vibes and aesthetics. That's the whole point of my criticisms.

The comment you were responding to had pictures of both chinampas and agroforestry.

I am aware. Did I not just describe my criticisms of chinampas in the comment you just replied to?

Why do you presume I needed to be informed of this so deep into the replies?

If you're not talking about that, then you're arguing against something nebulous and undefined.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I wasn't responding to the use or depiction of chinampas or agroforestry. I'm responding to the lack of political dimensions and the lack of program inherent to the solarpunk movement.

I'm not sure how I could have made that clearer unless I specifically prefaced my first comment with "This is not about the agriculture methods depicted in the images above".

Is it practical to try to define solarpunk as "anything you want it to be", or is it more practical to call it "appropriate tech with transparent social structures, and an environment that is scaled to human comprehension"?

That's a question for people who count themselves as part of the solarpunk movement.

But to me "appropriate" is a floating signifier as much as "in line with ecology" is - if you drill down into the details, all you find is vibes.

Of course the Texcoco style won't be suitable around the globe.

So what was the point in giving me the cliff notes of chinampas exactly unless you were trying to flex your knowledge and position the discussion as if I had no idea what they are?

You keep on attempting to school me on chinampas for some reason. I don't get it.

No need to trip over yourself to justify homogenized grain and pulse products

Again, I never said anything like this. I never argued in favor of conventional agriculture nor did I say that it's justified. You're tilting at windmills.

and they end up getting wasted at a similar rate anyway around the point of consumption.

I have zero clue what point you're trying to make here. In comparison to what? Based on what evidence?

The only rigorous and non-debatebro part of your post

See this is where I take issue with your attitude in these replies. You have approached this discussion as if there are only two options and that any criticism of solarpunk as an aesthetic masquerading as a political program equates to defending conventional agriculture and the typical western diet.

On top of that, instead of actually engaging with my arguments you decided that I don't know basic terms and that I needed to be told about food production methods like chinampas. Then you sling an insult at me by calling me a debatebro. That's dismal. If you take issue with debatebro comments then you should reflect on how you've approached this exchange with me.

The only rigorous and non-debatebro part of your post is saying that we can't give everyone a homestead with fields and buffer space.

That was the entire point of what I was saying. The fact that you felt it necessary to gripe about bleached flour and shelf-stable foods and it's only when this deep into the replies that you finally start discussing the point really illustrates your hypocrisy in calling me a debatebro.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that solarpunk is anything more than a gateway drug, but if it's not something that gets eaten up by cottagecore, it ends up orienting toward ecology and accessibility.

Not from what I've seen. I just see buzzwords like "appropriate use of technology" being deployed to avoid engaging with matters of implementation. I don't see any real engagement with ecology.

Just like with what permaculture has become today, so too is solarpunk. I've seen people with waterlogged soil making swales that further exacerbate the problems of water management on their land because they only understand form and not function, the same can be said with countless rocket stoves and rocket mass heaters - it's an utter disregard for any design principles because it has become aestheticized and a rocket mass heater has somehow become a symbol of permaculture. This is the exact same problem inherent to solarpunk except for the fact that solarpunk started as an aesthetic and, for all its problems and all the criticisms of it, at least permaculture was founded on serious agro-ecological design principles. The same cannot be said for the solarpunk movement.