4 ms·
charcoal can be good or bad from a forestation perspective. Good is a healthy cycle and removal of trees as a contributor to that process. Forests should not
by OrvalWintermute 5y ago
charcoal can be good or bad from a forestation perspective. Good is a healthy cycle and removal of trees as a contributor to that process.
Forests should not envelope all of the world, as that would kill of a number of other ecosystems.
The idea that forest should dominate everywhere is actually anti-ecological, in that it disrupts that natural balance.
We have in many cases, localized growth of forest, and regional deforestation [1]. Because the trees making up these ecological systems are local/regional also, we should seek to undo that damage where possible.
[1] https://blog.tentree.com/fact-check-are-there-really-more-trees-today-than-100-years-ago/ https://blog.tentree.com/fact-check-are-there-really-more-tr...
- nsonha 5y ago> The idea that forest should dominate everywhere is actually anti-ecological How do you define "ecological"? I would define it as nature without human intervention. Besides, there is no reason to believe that forest would "envelop all of the world" in such a way that is unsustainable because nature has its own check and balance for that. So I don't buy the argument that some of the activities that we do are beneficial to nature. You can of course argue that they are sustainable and not destructive in long term.
- sulam 5y agoLiving in California, I can tell you that yes, nature has checks and balances for that. The main check is fire, and we have suppressed it for decades. The forest density in managed national forests here vs unmanaged wilderness areas is something like 10 to 1 I’d say. And now the fire is coming anyway.