4 ms·
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
by 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 agoLook, 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 agoNice 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.