I'm a whole-hearted supporter of bioregionalism and really appreciate the concise yet complete explanation you give here.
On the subject of "invasive species" in the Great Lakes region, there's a fascinating research paper that came out in 2018 called "Anishnaabe Aki: An indigenous perpective on the global threat of invasive species." It's based on work with tribal people by researchers who included tribal people. One thing mentioned was the concept of "invasive land ethics" as being the issue, not the plants themselves, who -- some of the tribal people said -- are nations themselves whose migration is natural, whether they were brought by humans or otherwise. Here's an article about the paper:
An important part of bioregionalism is understanding that no region is static, and each is always changing. Had Europeans never arrived on this hemisphere, the mix of flora and fauna would not have remained the same in the 500+ years that followed. From archaeology and anthropology, among other sources, we know that the lifestyles of humans have changed as their regions changed. For example, though we describe the Holocene as "stable" in geological terms, there have been many shifts in climate within that time period which led to different lifestyles and migrations.
I bring all this up just to mention that bioregionalism has always been a process of adaptation and response to *change* in a place, not just to a place.
Again, I'm very appreciative of this essay and your work overall.
Can I add ethnic states of Burma to the list?
https://rcsd.soc.cmu.ac.th/publications/conflict-complexity-climate-change/
Certainly.
I'm a whole-hearted supporter of bioregionalism and really appreciate the concise yet complete explanation you give here.
On the subject of "invasive species" in the Great Lakes region, there's a fascinating research paper that came out in 2018 called "Anishnaabe Aki: An indigenous perpective on the global threat of invasive species." It's based on work with tribal people by researchers who included tribal people. One thing mentioned was the concept of "invasive land ethics" as being the issue, not the plants themselves, who -- some of the tribal people said -- are nations themselves whose migration is natural, whether they were brought by humans or otherwise. Here's an article about the paper:
https://conservationbiologynews.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/lessons-from-anishnaabe-ecological-experts-on-invasive-plants/
An important part of bioregionalism is understanding that no region is static, and each is always changing. Had Europeans never arrived on this hemisphere, the mix of flora and fauna would not have remained the same in the 500+ years that followed. From archaeology and anthropology, among other sources, we know that the lifestyles of humans have changed as their regions changed. For example, though we describe the Holocene as "stable" in geological terms, there have been many shifts in climate within that time period which led to different lifestyles and migrations.
I bring all this up just to mention that bioregionalism has always been a process of adaptation and response to *change* in a place, not just to a place.
Again, I'm very appreciative of this essay and your work overall.
Fantastic observation and I wholeheartedly agree.