Is there not something inherently contradictory in a movement that claims to be a human-centric, optimistic vision for the future, and then simultaneously sayin

Is there not something inherently contradictory in a movement that claims to be a human-centric, optimistic vision for the future, and then simultaneously saying that you feel it is “unethical to bring children into a world like ours”? More generally, I’ve noticed in solarpunk a continuation of a trend in many communities in recent years. Solarpunk, at first blush, is something very appealing to me. But under the surface it seems like much of the movement seems to have become increasingly centered on dismantling capitalism and implementing socialism, with actual sustainable societies being treated almost like a pleasant side effect rather than the main goal. I’m not in love with capitalism, and our current system needs major reforms, but I’m also not ready to treat the idea that socialism is required for sustainable human societies as an axiom. So much of the online discussion seems to be tribalism, the same old socialist shibboleths, and a never-ending exercise in labeling (nuclear power is fascist, fusion is fascist, non-urban living is fascist, etc). It seems like there is a branch of online leftism that is incredibly parasitic in nature: it takes nascent movements, injects itself into them and hollows them out until all that is left is just different veneers for the same underlying ideas. Unfortunately this seems to stunt the evolution of the movement and its ideas before it has the time to mature and discover what it is. It will be unfortunate if all solarpunk ever manages to be is more socialist blog-spam and clicktivism but for people who like gardening.