While I agree with the description of what is happening, I'm not sure I want to embrace it philosophically.
Having grown-up out in the country, I would be loath to "abandon" it. And moving towards a patchwork of city-states (walled even, suggests the article) is counter to my hopes for our country.
Possibly more important, it is probably not a pragmatic strategy.
On the dealing-with-reality side of things, those rural ares control our food, water, biodiversity, etc. Face it, cities are dependent on the surrounding countryside far more than we are willing to admit. I would prefer not to let the loggers manage all the forest lands.
On the political reality side, the structure of our federal government gives over-representation low-density populations.
Of course, in some ways, this idea mirrors my version of the Cascadia idea. Not just one new country, but several, in a loose federation:
Peoples Republic of Cascadia (Where the Green Party actually holds offices, and we build mass transit, etc.)
New Free State of the Inland Empire (Columbia River Basin, they can have their pickups and gun racks, vote libertarian, etc., just keep the food flowing and we'll need ecological treaties . . . )
Liberated Yukon Territories (Obviously, the people who live there are different kinds of folks, let them be, and we can take cruises to visit, fly fishing trips, etc.)
Restored Kingdom of Hawaii (Because I like the name)
And this could go one, I mean, the great lake blue states need something, and Union of New England States or something like that. Perhaps New York and LA would become independent City-States. Oh, and perhaps Cuba will liberate Florida.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Perhaps . . .
Having grown-up out in the country, I would be loath to "abandon" it. And moving towards a patchwork of city-states (walled even, suggests the article) is counter to my hopes for our country.
Possibly more important, it is probably not a pragmatic strategy.
On the dealing-with-reality side of things, those rural ares control our food, water, biodiversity, etc. Face it, cities are dependent on the surrounding countryside far more than we are willing to admit. I would prefer not to let the loggers manage all the forest lands.
On the political reality side, the structure of our federal government gives over-representation low-density populations.
Of course, in some ways, this idea mirrors my version of the Cascadia idea. Not just one new country, but several, in a loose federation:
And this could go one, I mean, the great lake blue states need something, and Union of New England States or something like that. Perhaps New York and LA would become independent City-States. Oh, and perhaps Cuba will liberate Florida.
OK, that sounds like fun . . .