this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
47 points (92.7% liked)

Asklemmy

50313 readers
587 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've been wondering about how well a lot of American states could function if they where fully independent states. I'm not thinking every state would be it's own country but states banding together and becoming there own countries. An example of this California, Oregon, and Washington.

I'm thinking that kind of like the Fediverse it is easier to manage and do more the people on a smaller scale.

What do others think of this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

If by bioregion you mean geographical features, like rocky mountains and rivers and such, let me give you a warning. It might seem like a straightforward way to do things, but it can lead to discontentment among the people. For example, in europe, in the southern alps, there's a region called "tirol" with a relatively homogenous culture. unfortunately, a big mountain range ran right across the region, dividing it in two - "northern tirol" and "southern tirol". when WW2 was lost, the region got re-divided and split up along the geographical borders, instead of the cultural borders, so the region was torn in two. people are still pissed about this, a hundred years later.

so, you might want to ask the actual population living there for their opinion and respect that.

[โ€“] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fair warning! This is what I meant, but of course culture is worth taking into account : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioregion

interesting! the landscape definitely influences the humans that live there, but i think besides plant and animal species, also things like the proximity to the sea (for shipping trade) plays an important role. the sea connects more than it divides, so regions close to the sea are natural global traders. Consider england (which is one huge island) was historically the country with the biggest navy, that sailed all across the world, to india, to china, and had lots of exchanges that way. so yes, landscape does something to the way humans live, but it's not just plants and vegetation, it's mostly the landscape formation, i guess.