3 ms·
> It is a very young forest That's what I meant - sorry that wasn't clear. I remember being taught, '80s -' 90s, that the Amazonian rainforest ecosystem had e
by eszed 2y ago
> It is a very young forest
That's what I meant - sorry that wasn't clear.
I remember being taught, '80s -' 90s, that the Amazonian rainforest ecosystem had existed in basically its present form for thousands of years.
That was said in the context of explaining why it shouldn't be cut it down at the rate it currently is. I certainly don't mean to say that now that we know it is such a young forest it's OK to cut it down! I just find it interesting that, and how quickly, such an accepted, "obvious", point of fact has been found not to be true.
What do you mean by "nothing was demolished"?
[Edit: Wait - I think I answered my own question. I meant the idea (of an old forest) had been demolished. Not that anything physical had been. Glad we cleared that up!
- marcosdumay 2y ago> thousands of years. Yes, many thousands of years. That's what "young" means for forests. Probably not in its present form, because it's a quite sensitive forest, that may have probably changed a lot in that time. But almost all of it hasn't been directly changed by people until 300 years ago. Technically, most still hasn't, but we are getting really close on that "most" thing. And yeah, there have been civilizations there. They didn't change most of the forest, overall your understanding that it was just there is about right.