0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
The American experiment did balance competing interests, at first, within a shared landmass, ecology, and set of material constraints. But it also relies on, extracting resources from elsewhere(including people) and over time, scaled beyond its bioregional limits
Now imagine that model scaled to the entire planet.
A global government, even with good intentions, risks becoming a monoculture of governance... detached from the watersheds, cultures, and ecologies it’s supposed to serve. It’s not about fearing the Antichrist. It’s about knowing that the land teaches differently in every place, and centralization silences that plurality.
Global coordination? Necessary.
Global governance? That's empire, just rebranded.
Bioregionalism is the future. Let's not go backwards. 1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Totally hear you, and yeah, improving democracy is key. But I think how and where democracy happens matters just as much.
We can’t fix global issues by just scaling democracy upward. That risks replicating the same systems that concentrate power and silence local voices. The further decisions get from the land and the people living on it, the easier it is for them to be co-opted by wealth, tech, or bureaucracy.
If techno-optimists really cared about a better world, they’d help build democracy rooted in place, bioregional, resilient, locally accountable. Not just “more voting,” but power that stays close to the people and ecosystems it affects. 0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions