4 ms·

But can you think and provide any reasonable solution on how to restore historical uninterrupted forest, that once covered most of Europe and which now is highl

But can you think and provide any reasonable solution on how to restore historical uninterrupted forest, that once covered most of Europe and which now is highly urbanized area? And I would suggest to read the article - the main issue that locals are concerned about is not preservation of trees, but receiving profit share from cutting these trees. Fate of trees is not uncertainty - they will be gone to give place where to grow crops. Most of CDR population does not use electricity, but if they were using electricity, they would have even more needs and trees would be cut out in even bigger rate, to sustain that lifestyle.

gambiting 5y ago
You probably can't restore a truly "uninterrupted" forest in Europe, as you said people live in most places now and there isn't much you can do about it. Having said that - Europe's forest coverage is increasing rapidly[0], and growing every year[1]. For another example, UK's forests are already up to "medieval" levels, and growing[2]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04... [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environ... [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woodland-back-to-medieval-levels-j097fqtkw https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woodland-back-to-medieval...
- jhgb 5y ago
  > UK's forests are already up to "medieval" levels That is not a very high standard; as far as I recall, Britain has been a cultured landscape at the very least since the Iron Age. (Related to that is the fact that medieval population of Britain has also been roughly at Iron Age levels, or vice versa. There were apparently around four million people in Iron Age Britain.)
- Bobylonian 5y ago
  >>>Europe's forest coverage is increasing rapidly[0], and growing every year[1]. bushes Statistics include under "forests" also bushes and young trees. There is also issue with understanding of what forest mean - forests are not trees, but includes soil, that is built up by trees over millenia and animals - without them forest is just a plantation - animals need older trees to use them for their habitat or for gathering food. Single species of trees, that are planted in inpenetrable rows are devoid of life of what natural forests have.
atlasunshrugged 5y ago
When you said in your initial comment "save the forests" I did not imagine you talking about restoring the historical forest from thousands of years ago, rather the forests of recent decades. Yes, I did read it and see that they wanted a cut (also, assuming people didn't read the article because they don't agree with your take is super lame). Can't say I blame them, why should they starve while the rest of the world has already gotten theirs and burned all the coal and timber they wanted. I think your idea of having historical uninterrupted forests is unrealistic and unnecessary barring all humanity dying or leaving earth for some other planet,]. I personally can't stand this degrowth mindset that would bring us back to the hunter gatherer era as it's unrealistic and unhelpful in tackling humanity's current problems. The genie is out of the bottle, no one is going back to a pure hunter gatherer lifestyle. Edit, grammar error and changing "forests today" to "forests of recent decades" to be more precise
- Bobylonian 5y ago
  >>>I personally can't stand this degrowth mindset that would bring us back to the hunter gatherer era Your derogatory language towards forest-gatherer lifestyle means that you have not read article - that article is about hunter-gatherers who live in forests. Where else they can get their grubs, to cook? Where they can gather meat and wood?
  - Bobylonian 5y ago
    That's not really an excuse to use derogatory language. What else are you thinking about those people?
    - atlasunshrugged 5y ago
      Are you referring to my comment about not liking the degrowth mindset and wanting to go back to hunter gathering? I'm not sure why that's derogatory. Do you think most of the people referenced in the article would not trade their current lifestyles for a middle class life in the US or Europe today? I also was talking specifically about "degrowth mindset" which is not referring to the people actually living in the conditions described in the article but rather westerners who want to drag the world back from technological progress in a misguided attempt to save it. I think Tyler Cowen had a good talk/article about it in Marginal Revolution a few weeks back, and Noahpinion (Bloomberg columnist) had a good post about it. The things I am optimizing for generally in my worldview are 1) increasing quality of life for the most people possible, 2) preventing x-risks. I mention this so you can understand where I'm coming from. I just don't think that a malthusian/degrowth mindset will help anyone. And no, I don't like hunter-gathering as an idea in general for the world (although some days after I'm sick of all the tech and nonsense around us I do dream of it) but for the long term sake of humanity reverting to this seems short-sighted... what if we need global coordination on a problem like asteroid avoidance or a supervolcano and humanity is extinguished because we don't have the requisite technology to tackle it? https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-degrowth https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-...

gambiting 5y ago

You probably can't restore a truly "uninterrupted" forest in Europe, as you said people live in most places now and there isn't much you can do about it. Having said that - Europe's forest coverage is increasing rapidly[0], and growing every year[1]. For another example, UK's forests are already up to "medieval" levels, and growing[2]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04... [1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environ... [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woodland-back-to-medieval-levels-j097fqtkw https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woodland-back-to-medieval...

jhgb 5y ago
> UK's forests are already up to "medieval" levels That is not a very high standard; as far as I recall, Britain has been a cultured landscape at the very least since the Iron Age. (Related to that is the fact that medieval population of Britain has also been roughly at Iron Age levels, or vice versa. There were apparently around four million people in Iron Age Britain.)
Bobylonian 5y ago
>>>Europe's forest coverage is increasing rapidly[0], and growing every year[1]. bushes Statistics include under "forests" also bushes and young trees. There is also issue with understanding of what forest mean - forests are not trees, but includes soil, that is built up by trees over millenia and animals - without them forest is just a plantation - animals need older trees to use them for their habitat or for gathering food. Single species of trees, that are planted in inpenetrable rows are devoid of life of what natural forests have.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago

When you said in your initial comment "save the forests" I did not imagine you talking about restoring the historical forest from thousands of years ago, rather the forests of recent decades. Yes, I did read it and see that they wanted a cut (also, assuming people didn't read the article because they don't agree with your take is super lame). Can't say I blame them, why should they starve while the rest of the world has already gotten theirs and burned all the coal and timber they wanted. I think your idea of having historical uninterrupted forests is unrealistic and unnecessary barring all humanity dying or leaving earth for some other planet,]. I personally can't stand this degrowth mindset that would bring us back to the hunter gatherer era as it's unrealistic and unhelpful in tackling humanity's current problems. The genie is out of the bottle, no one is going back to a pure hunter gatherer lifestyle. Edit, grammar error and changing "forests today" to "forests of recent decades" to be more precise

Bobylonian 5y ago
>>>I personally can't stand this degrowth mindset that would bring us back to the hunter gatherer era Your derogatory language towards forest-gatherer lifestyle means that you have not read article - that article is about hunter-gatherers who live in forests. Where else they can get their grubs, to cook? Where they can gather meat and wood?
- Bobylonian 5y ago
  That's not really an excuse to use derogatory language. What else are you thinking about those people?
  - atlasunshrugged 5y ago
    Are you referring to my comment about not liking the degrowth mindset and wanting to go back to hunter gathering? I'm not sure why that's derogatory. Do you think most of the people referenced in the article would not trade their current lifestyles for a middle class life in the US or Europe today? I also was talking specifically about "degrowth mindset" which is not referring to the people actually living in the conditions described in the article but rather westerners who want to drag the world back from technological progress in a misguided attempt to save it. I think Tyler Cowen had a good talk/article about it in Marginal Revolution a few weeks back, and Noahpinion (Bloomberg columnist) had a good post about it. The things I am optimizing for generally in my worldview are 1) increasing quality of life for the most people possible, 2) preventing x-risks. I mention this so you can understand where I'm coming from. I just don't think that a malthusian/degrowth mindset will help anyone. And no, I don't like hunter-gathering as an idea in general for the world (although some days after I'm sick of all the tech and nonsense around us I do dream of it) but for the long term sake of humanity reverting to this seems short-sighted... what if we need global coordination on a problem like asteroid avoidance or a supervolcano and humanity is extinguished because we don't have the requisite technology to tackle it? https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-degrowth https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-...