3 ms·

>You're mistaking redistribution for destruction... No, you are. With respect, you should consider reading some history. Try reading about the conditions of th

>You're mistaking redistribution for destruction... No, you are. With respect, you should consider reading some history. Try reading about the conditions of the peasantry after the black plague, or postwar Europe, or even the various falls of the various iterations of Rome. Fire destroys the previous order, yes, but it also sows the seeds for growth. But fire bad! Yes, yes, I know; but this forest isn't the only forest, nor is it the only possible forest. Fire bad, but fire is the only way to fix this situation, because of the way "we" have "managed" our "forests" for as long as I've been alive. Maybe I need to be a Boomer to properly "understand". If there's another solution, I'm all ears, but history suggests that fire is the only solution.

newsclues 4y ago
Ok, so if we destroy the current order, how many people will die or suffer? How long until the growth occurs, and how fast will it take to get back to the current state of things?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> Fire destroys the previous order, yes, but it also sows the seeds for growth. You're ignoring base effects. Of course peasants are going to "prosper" (on paper) if agriculture goes from 1% of the economy to 100%. And, again, this isn't a "wealth redistribution". You've taken out 99% of the economy and left the remaining 1% in tact. It didn't grow. But it did grow relative to the rest that was destroyed.