Ecoregionalism?

[Creative Destruction]

I always liked the idea of, as a replacement to "nations" and "peoples," that stateless administrative divisions were made along the lines of ecoregions. People who exist in the same ecological area usually have a lot more in common -- materially -- than they do with people who may be of their same nation, but thousands of miles a part. It would also make local production decisions a lot smoother, when you're taking into account local environment. Also, if your way of life is accustomed or tied to a specific ecoregion, and since ecoregions are generally unique, there wouldn't be a need to go and dominate or conquer other people. (Given that conquering is usually to expand territorial control in order to enforce certain ways of life.)

What kind of problems would this consist of, do you think?

[BIXX]

I always liked the idea of, as a replacement to "nations" and "peoples," that stateless administrative divisions were made along the lines of ecoregions.
Uh...


People who exist in the same ecological area usually have a lot more in common -- materially -- than they do with people who may be of their same nation, but thousands of miles a part. It would also make local production decisions a lot smoother, when you're taking into account local environment.
How does one determine where one expression ends and the other begins? I mean I suppose there are some obvious ones (not that I know of any but I'm assuming there are at least a few) but the vast majority of transitions from woodlands to deserts to jungles etc... Is a slow one. So how do we decide where the ecoregions' borders of influence begin and end?


Also, if your way of life is accustomed or tied to a specific ecoregion, and since ecoregions are generally unique, there wouldn't be a need to go and dominate or conquer other people. (Given that conquering is usually to expand territorial control in order to enforce certain ways of life.)
That is not why people conquer other people- they conquer other folks to gain power, capital, etc... They couldn't care less about imposing their way of life, unless it got them more power. In fact, ecoregions might encourage invasions, as then folks who wanted shit form on echo region would only have one region to decide from rather than many.


What kind of problems would this consist of, do you think?
I think this is poorly thought out. We have an ecoregionist movement where I live (they call it bioregionalism) and it is pretty lame.

[Creative Destruction]

Uh...

Uh, what?


How does one determine where one expression ends and the other begins? I mean I suppose there are some obvious ones (not that I know of any but I'm assuming there are at least a few) but the vast majority of transitions from woodlands to deserts to jungles etc... Is a slow one. So how do we decide where the ecoregions' borders of influence begin and end?

Ecoregions are fairly well and specifically defined.

In the United States, a lot of proposals for a functioning, decentralized, socialist economy usually assumes that people will organize from a local council to a county council to a regional council and so on, and the highest levels would generally mimic what we see as the states today. But these are largely arbitrarily defined.

Using a ecoregion map, like Omernick's level III surve (ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/cec_na/NA_LEVEL_III.pdf)y, we can see how defined these areas are. And the people living in communities within the ecoregions could organize at a regional level, if necessary. It would, I think, make sense on a production and planning level. One part of Texas -- for example -- is not going to want the same amount of x-thing as another part of Texas (you won't need as much heating oil in on the coast as you would need in the Panhandle, for example.)

Which is why I said in my OP, people in ecoregions have a lot more materially in common than they do split up in any other sense, along more metaphysical or culturally changing lines.


That is not why people conquer other people- they conquer other folks to gain power, capital, etc... They couldn't care less about imposing their way of life, unless it got them more power. In fact, ecoregions might encourage invasions, as then folks who wanted shit form on echo region would only have one region to decide from rather than many.

Yeah, those are among other reasons, too. I'm foregoing the assumption that you'd want or need to conquer others to gain power or capital in a socialist society. The only other reason I could it would happen in that scenario is a kind of cultural imperialism, which would be rendered irrelevant. If your "culture" is tied, necessarily, to a unique ecosystem, it'd make no sense to try and export it or push it on anyone else.


I think this is poorly thought out.

Well, thanks. This is why I'm fielding other responses. Or do you just want to continue to act like a dick?


We have an ecoregionist movement where I live (they call it bioregionalism) and it is pretty lame.

Lame in what way?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm in favor of forming administrative districts based on bioregionalism.

[BIXX]

Uh, what?
Uh, no, I think ecoregionalism is fucking stupid but I was being nice in my last post. Ecoregionalism is the dumbest shit.


Ecoregions are fairly well and specifically defined.
But they are often arbitrary (meaning the borders could be shifted somewhat drastically and still technically fall within acceptable boundaries for their ecoregions). Furthermore, people who live in these transition zones, how are they allocated? Which ecoregion do they belong to? This is what I mean by ecoregions being poorly defined- they still have fairly arbitrary borders, just like modern nations.

Also every "ecological zone" (which is really a bullshit idea for the reason I'm about to show) interacts too much for them to be separated. For example, let's take Region D, which has the following wildlife: U, M, B. So while M may only interact with U and B, U and B may (and most often do) interact with Region F's organisms, which we will call U (because, holy shit, news flash, different ecosystems share wildlife, who the fuck would have thought that?!), C, and K. So, the shit that happens to organism M in Region D affects all the organisms in Region F by proxy through organisms U and B. So why would we separate the decisions that will affect all organisms from each other?

Btw I call this model of why ecoregionalism is bullshit the DUMBFUCK model because I'm a middle schooler at heart.


In the United States, a lot of proposals for a functioning, decentralized, socialist economy usually assumes that people will organize from a local council to a county council to a regional council and so on, and the highest levels would generally mimic what we see as the states today. But these are largely arbitrarily defined.
And I don't support those either.


Using a ecoregion map, like Omernick's level III surve (ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/cec_na/NA_LEVEL_III.pdf)y, we can see how defined these areas are.
See above- ecoregion borders still are arbitrary. And harmful.


And the people living in communities within the ecoregions could organize at a regional level, if necessary. It would, I think, make sense on a production and planning level. One part of Texas -- for example -- is not going to want the same amount of x-thing as another part of Texas (you won't need as much heating oil in on the coast as you would need in the Panhandle, for example.)
Wouldn't it be easier for people to make these decisions themselves? I don't want my community to decide how much heating oil we get collectively. I want to decide how much oil I get, individually.


Which is why I said in my OP, people in ecoregions have a lot more materially in common than they do split up in any other sense, along more metaphysical or culturally changing lines.
However they also have MUCH MORE in common with their immediate communities (often), so why not make borders based on community? Well, partially the same reason as to why we shouldn't make borders based on ecoregions- because who is to say where a bioregion ends and begins?


Yeah, those are among other reasons, too. I'm foregoing the assumption that you'd want or need to conquer others to gain power or capital in a socialist society.
You'd be amazed at the power of borders to incentivize invasions and the like. Plus, this creates a potential for regionalist nationalism (which I guess would just be called regionalism if this were the reality we were faced with) which could easily lead to regional conflicts. So I don't accept that this idea is a valid socialist one as it leads to internal conflicts with socialism (which, I am also not so cool with socialism/communism, but that's a talk for another day).


The only other reason I could it would happen in that scenario is a kind of cultural imperialism, which would be rendered irrelevant. If your "culture" is tied, necessarily, to a unique ecosystem, it'd make no sense to try and export it or push it on anyone else.
A lot of cultures aren't tied to a particular bioregion though.


Well, thanks. This is why I'm fielding other responses. Or do you just want to continue to act like a dick?
Well actually I was quote reasonable in that post. You asked for our opinions, I gave my opinion- sorry my opinion about bioregionalism being poorly thought out pissed you off so bad.


Lame in what way?
To them, all struggles are a gateway to their cause of organizing along the lines of ecoregions- so at anti fascist events, or anti-capitalist, anti-cop, etc... events, they'll show up and fly their shitty flags.

Plus they are lame because they support bioregionalism (which is super liberal tbh).

[Creative Destruction]

But they are often arbitrary (meaning the borders could be shifted somewhat drastically and still technically fall within acceptable boundaries for their ecoregions). Furthermore, people who live in these transition zones, how are they allocated? Which ecoregion do they belong to?

Whichever one is most similar to where they are living. And ecoregions can shift for environmental reasons, but your reasoning that they're arbitrary because they share wildlife is spurious.


This is what I mean by ecoregions being poorly defined- they still have fairly arbitrary borders, just like modern nations.

They're not poorly defined. They're actually very specifically defined and include, in their consideration, the complex combination of climate, flora and fauna that is unique to any given area. The way you can see that they're not poorly defined is that these conditions replicate themselves in multiple places, thus, as you can see if you look at the map, some ecoregions are not contiguous. They refer to a specific combination of wildlife and climactic conditions that are replicated in several places.


Also every "ecological zone" (which is really a bullshit idea for the reason I'm about to show) interacts too much for them to be separated. For example, let's take Region D, which has the following wildlife: U, M, B. So while M may only interact with U and B, U and B may (and most often do) interact with Region F's organisms, which we will call U (because, holy shit, news flash, different ecosystems share wildlife, who the fuck would have thought that?!), C, and K. So, the shit that happens to organism M in Region D affects all the organisms in Region F by proxy through organisms U and B. So why would we separate the decisions that will affect all organisms from each other?

The only thing you showed here is you don't understand what an ecoregion is. Whether an ecoregion shares wildlife is inconsequential because what matters isn't that they have unique wildlife in a given ecoregion, but to what extent is there a unique mix of wildlife, in addition to things like climate, exist in any given area.

The borders are fluid (which is different from arbitrary) and can change for a variety of environmental reasons. When that happens, you just have to "redistrict," if necessary. We're not talking about having nations or borders in the sense that you're going to need documentation or whatever else to be apart of a-region when you're coming from b-region, or that you need to integrate into a given culture when you move from one place to another. It's a method of organizing production and allocation under an internationalist socialist system, in a way that would make sense for people to choose their consumption choices, given their local environment. Again, it would make a lot more sense to group communities using this standard than it would going along traditional, entirely arbitrary, lines like the states in America.


Btw I call this model of why ecoregionalism is bullshit the DUMBFUCK model because I'm a middle schooler at heart.

And for this reason, and the rest of your shithead post, is why you don't deserve any further consideration. The only valid critique you've had has been asked and answered.

You want to stop being a piece of shit troll now and post in the thread in a civil manner, or do you just want to be ignored while you act like a child?