4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... Prior to European colonization

by titzer 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... Prior to European colonization: 1,023,000,000 acres Today: 766,000,000 acres If that is too complicated for you to process, please take a look at the graphics on the page. Btw I don't do religion. Let's do facts instead.

ThomPete 8y ago
In what world is that in any way supporting your claim that: "We chopped down most of the forests in the US [1] to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime." So 25%
- titzer 8y ago
  Look at the graphic on Wikipedia from 1926. There were virtually no virgin forests in Indiana left at that time.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I am looking at your claim which was and I repeat "We chopped down most of the forests in the US" That's factually wrong in so many ways especially seen in the light of your entire comment to me.
    - titzer 8y ago
      Look, if you don't understand what "virgin forest" means and don't want to actually follow links and instead want to argue endlessly hoping for some kind of silly gotcha, I'll just spell it out for you: yes my original statement that we absolutely did chop down most of the forests of the US stands; it was informed by facts beforehand and I provided them afterwards. You can read the gory details on your own time. Spoiler alert, forest grows back, but never the same. Lots of species perish in the process. It's incredibly destructive. Technically, yes, today we have more forest than we did in ~1910, making today's loss about 25% of what was there in 1600. But this is a long sidetrack; whatever in the heck you were trying to argue in the OP about us making the environment more stable, it's just plain not the case. We upend every ecosystem we ever encounter. I would recommend reading "Sapiens" by Yuval Harari. But at this point this level of discussion isn't productive, as you are currently burning karma all over this thread. HN is a nice community. Stop being a troll.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        Nice try. Yet the reality is that you were not just wrong you literally made my point. We can deal with things also forest. 25% is nothing just like your “point” isnt a point at all.
explainplease 8y ago
On the other hand: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-more-trees-now-than-there-were-100-years-ago/answer/Jeanne-Paquette-1 https://www.quora.com/Are-there-more-trees-now-than-there-we... "There is just no accurate estimate of the number of trees 100 years ago, relative to now." --Jeanne Paquette, Mineralogist who also teaches some paleontology at McGill University (1991-present) Maybe you should pick a topic with more hard data to argue about. Or is that too complicated for you? Nah, you just have an agenda: we're all gonna die unless we do what you say! Who cares about the truth! Truth must serve, not be served!

by titzer 8y ago

ThomPete 8y ago

In what world is that in any way supporting your claim that: "We chopped down most of the forests in the US [1] to make farmland. Literally. My home state of Indiana was _literally_ solid hardwood forest 250 years ago. Take a look at it on Google maps sometime." So 25%

titzer 8y ago
Look at the graphic on Wikipedia from 1926. There were virtually no virgin forests in Indiana left at that time.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I am looking at your claim which was and I repeat "We chopped down most of the forests in the US" That's factually wrong in so many ways especially seen in the light of your entire comment to me.
  - titzer 8y ago
    Look, if you don't understand what "virgin forest" means and don't want to actually follow links and instead want to argue endlessly hoping for some kind of silly gotcha, I'll just spell it out for you: yes my original statement that we absolutely did chop down most of the forests of the US stands; it was informed by facts beforehand and I provided them afterwards. You can read the gory details on your own time. Spoiler alert, forest grows back, but never the same. Lots of species perish in the process. It's incredibly destructive. Technically, yes, today we have more forest than we did in ~1910, making today's loss about 25% of what was there in 1600. But this is a long sidetrack; whatever in the heck you were trying to argue in the OP about us making the environment more stable, it's just plain not the case. We upend every ecosystem we ever encounter. I would recommend reading "Sapiens" by Yuval Harari. But at this point this level of discussion isn't productive, as you are currently burning karma all over this thread. HN is a nice community. Stop being a troll.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Nice try. Yet the reality is that you were not just wrong you literally made my point. We can deal with things also forest. 25% is nothing just like your “point” isnt a point at all.

explainplease 8y ago

On the other hand: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-more-trees-now-than-there-were-100-years-ago/answer/Jeanne-Paquette-1 https://www.quora.com/Are-there-more-trees-now-than-there-we... "There is just no accurate estimate of the number of trees 100 years ago, relative to now." --Jeanne Paquette, Mineralogist who also teaches some paleontology at McGill University (1991-present) Maybe you should pick a topic with more hard data to argue about. Or is that too complicated for you? Nah, you just have an agenda: we're all gonna die unless we do what you say! Who cares about the truth! Truth must serve, not be served!