3 ms·

Virtually all of Europe used to just be forest. Large swathes of East England used to be uninhabitable swamp, much of the Netherlands used to be underwater.

DubiousPusher 2y ago
If you think this is a convincing counterpoint, I assure you it is not.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  It’s only not a convincing counter point if you’re a fantasist thinking we should be living in a Bronze Age utopia. I suspect if pressed this would turn out to be Motte and Bailey argument where: Motte: deforestation and draining wet lands is bad Bailey: we should reduce the global population by 95% so we can live without modern agriculture
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Also probably about 1 out of 16 of us would be living at all.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    > if you’re a fantasist thinking we should be living in a Bronze Age utopia. Bronze Age people were smart enough to live in places with easy access to fresh water, so they're demonstrably wiser than whoever came up with this proposal.
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      > Bronze Age people were smart enough to live in places with easy access to fresh water But not wise enough to invent antibiotics so it’s a head-scratcher; am I willing to put up with pumped water to avoid dying of cholera and lockjaw?
  - DubiousPusher 2y ago
    This is a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between total exploitation of the biosphere and poverty. Nowhere did I say that European development should have been minimized. I simply said the example of European development was not a good argument for attempting to transform the environment of the American West. Let's look at the chain of argument. The poster was countering an assertion that humans have created massive ecological turmoil by seeking to fundamentally reshape the Earth. Their counter was that Europe was once forest and swamp. I can only assume they meant that we take for granted that the present condition of Europe is good and because it was once mostly "just" forest and swamp that Europe demonstrates that these transformations are acceptable or even preferable and therefore we should do them. I think this is a bad argument because it contains many assumptions and implications which I think are false. Assumptions: #1 The magnitude of exploitation of Europe was necessary to achieve modern life. #2 The development of modern European life occurred on an ideal or preferable timeline and things would not be better if this process had been gentler to the environment and taken an additional 1,000 years. #3 The ecosystems of the American West are not more unique or prized than the temperate forests of Europe and their loss represents a similar loss therefore justifying the trade off. #4 Wilderness, despite its increasing scarcity is not more valuable today than it was 1,000 years ago. #5 Exploitation of the American West would have a similar economic and developmental impact as the exploitation of primeval Europe and therefore represents a worthwhile trade off. I don't think any of the above should be taken for granted.
- failrate 2y ago
  I agree with you: swamps and forests do a lot of work to make this planet habitable.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I find it convincing
throw_pm23 2y ago
Partly proves the point of the OP: cutting out the forests and draining the swamps led to soil erosion, massive floods, and loss of biodiversity. I'm not saying it had no reason or benefit, obviously it was for economic reasons (extra land for agriculture and human settlements), just that it is not something that should "obviously" be done.
- devjab 2y ago
  GPs point makes it sound as though the destructive parts were unintended and a surprise. They often weren’t, and they very rarely are these days when it comes to “landscaping” (sorry if that’s the incorrect terminology in English). We know perfectly well how to alter the land we live on. At least in the EU we’ve been turning fields into swamps or forests and back again for various reasons since we industrialised farming. Basically all of the effects are known. While we can agree or disagree with a lot of the choices that are made in terms of economic growth, it’s not like what happens is surprising or unintended.

DubiousPusher 2y ago

If you think this is a convincing counterpoint, I assure you it is not.

petesergeant 2y ago
It’s only not a convincing counter point if you’re a fantasist thinking we should be living in a Bronze Age utopia. I suspect if pressed this would turn out to be Motte and Bailey argument where: Motte: deforestation and draining wet lands is bad Bailey: we should reduce the global population by 95% so we can live without modern agriculture
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Also probably about 1 out of 16 of us would be living at all.
- kibwen 2y ago
  > if you’re a fantasist thinking we should be living in a Bronze Age utopia. Bronze Age people were smart enough to live in places with easy access to fresh water, so they're demonstrably wiser than whoever came up with this proposal.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > Bronze Age people were smart enough to live in places with easy access to fresh water But not wise enough to invent antibiotics so it’s a head-scratcher; am I willing to put up with pumped water to avoid dying of cholera and lockjaw?
- DubiousPusher 2y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between total exploitation of the biosphere and poverty. Nowhere did I say that European development should have been minimized. I simply said the example of European development was not a good argument for attempting to transform the environment of the American West. Let's look at the chain of argument. The poster was countering an assertion that humans have created massive ecological turmoil by seeking to fundamentally reshape the Earth. Their counter was that Europe was once forest and swamp. I can only assume they meant that we take for granted that the present condition of Europe is good and because it was once mostly "just" forest and swamp that Europe demonstrates that these transformations are acceptable or even preferable and therefore we should do them. I think this is a bad argument because it contains many assumptions and implications which I think are false. Assumptions: #1 The magnitude of exploitation of Europe was necessary to achieve modern life. #2 The development of modern European life occurred on an ideal or preferable timeline and things would not be better if this process had been gentler to the environment and taken an additional 1,000 years. #3 The ecosystems of the American West are not more unique or prized than the temperate forests of Europe and their loss represents a similar loss therefore justifying the trade off. #4 Wilderness, despite its increasing scarcity is not more valuable today than it was 1,000 years ago. #5 Exploitation of the American West would have a similar economic and developmental impact as the exploitation of primeval Europe and therefore represents a worthwhile trade off. I don't think any of the above should be taken for granted.
failrate 2y ago
I agree with you: swamps and forests do a lot of work to make this planet habitable.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I find it convincing

throw_pm23 2y ago

Partly proves the point of the OP: cutting out the forests and draining the swamps led to soil erosion, massive floods, and loss of biodiversity. I'm not saying it had no reason or benefit, obviously it was for economic reasons (extra land for agriculture and human settlements), just that it is not something that should "obviously" be done.

devjab 2y ago
GPs point makes it sound as though the destructive parts were unintended and a surprise. They often weren’t, and they very rarely are these days when it comes to “landscaping” (sorry if that’s the incorrect terminology in English). We know perfectly well how to alter the land we live on. At least in the EU we’ve been turning fields into swamps or forests and back again for various reasons since we industrialised farming. Basically all of the effects are known. While we can agree or disagree with a lot of the choices that are made in terms of economic growth, it’s not like what happens is surprising or unintended.