Main arguments against bioregionalism/anarchism

 

1. What we have now is not so bad. The present situation is not all that bad, and does not require radical transformation in either society or worldview.

 

2. Bioregionalism/anarchism would not be a good alternative. Even if the bioregional/anarchist ideal could be achieved, and even if we acknowledge real problems in the present situation, the bioregional/anarchist ideal has too many substantial drawbacks.

  • It is bad in itself, for example:
    • unacceptable reduction in standard of living and conveniences
    • unacceptable lack of financial security
    • unacceptable reduction in technology (e.g., medical advances)
    • too narrowly local and provincial
    • won’t be able to deal with large scale problems (regional, continental, global)
    • autonomous regions would lack universal protections, such as human rights, Bill of Rights, etc., and local regions would be free to discriminate against those not in power.
  • It might be good for some, but others (e.g., poor or “ Third World”) would suffer
    • for example, we need mega-urbanism, heavy industrialization, high technology, and corporate agribusiness to sustain the population.
  • Even if we thought it was good, it would be too vulnerable to domination by larger, aggressive societies.

 

3. The theory is unacceptable

  • On reality: the theoretical ideas and assumptions are false and bad. For example
    • human nature (e.g., humans are not naturally harmonious, thus we need state authoritarian power)
    • social philosophy (e.g., a non-competitive society would not produce the world we need)
    • philosophy of nature (e.g., nature is not characterized by mutual aid, but by survival of the fittest)
  • On values: the basic values are bad.

 

4. It can’t happen: The bioregional/anarchist ideal is impossible to achieve.

  1. Because people will want to keep their affluence, modern amenities, etc.
  2. Because the State and the economic powers will not allow it to happen.
  3. Even if the people and the State went along with it, the transition would be too costly, e.g., because society would disintegrate into chaos, totalitarianism, religious extremism, or other unacceptable situation.
  4. Such a transition is just impossible,
    • we can’t go back, we have to move forward; “advancement” of “civilization” is inevitable
    • you just can’t get there from here

There are at least four responses to the impossibility argument

1. The bioregional/anarchist ideal actually can happen if we really work at it over generations. Think of the other major changes that have happened through history.

 

2. It can’t be fully achieved, but the best way to improvethe current situation is to aim toward that ideal and approach it as much as we can. The bioregional/anarchist ideal provides the best direction we can take, even if we can’t full get there.

 

3. It can’t be achieved throughout society, but it can be largely achieved by particular groups in particular areas and as many people as possible should aim for that.

 

4. The situation is so bad now and the bioregional/anarchist ideal is so good that one should pursue it, even if it can’t be achieved in a significant way.

 

 

 

 

Back Home

Last updated: October 30, 2007