There are still so called primeval forests in Europe. Meaning they have grown in that place as far as we (human race) remember. They are small and strictly prot

There are still so called primeval forests in Europe. Meaning they have grown in that place as far as we (human race) remember. They are small and strictly protected. And yes, they are "better" on some metrics - the main difference is - whether the dead wood is removed from the forest or left there. There's lots of endangered species of birds, insects and even mammals that depend on dead wood, and industrialized forests (99% of what we have in Europe) doesn't have that. Also natural forests are much more resistant to devastation by one particular insect or sickness, because only strong trees remain, species of trees (and generations of trees) are mixed with each other. In industrialized forests (especially these created shortly after WW2) they just planted pine trees, all planted same year. When bark beetle has a "good" year - these forests have to be actively maintained (every tree attacked has to be removed before 2 weeks pass and beetles spread to nearby trees), or the whole forest dies in one year. Natural forests doesn't care, because weak, young trees of same species don't grow close enough for big epidemic. BTW I only know that because we have a heated political debate in Poland - current anti-ecology government is cutting down some part of semi-natural forest surrounding protected natural forest under the excuse that bark bettle is going to destroy it otherways. Scientists and ecologists protest, wood industry support the government. Even EU is involved.