logoalt Hacker News

anthonypasq • yesterday at 5:38 PM • 5 replies • view on HN

What exactly was the benefit of old growth forest to humans? I understand completely what happened, i just struggle with the downstream moral implication these sorts of stories are supposed to tug at.

Is the point that people moving into the American west should have froze to death rather than chop down trees for fire and shelter? The trees had much more utility to humans as fuel than it did as a forest at that moment, and unless you think biomass is an intrinsic good regardless of whether it helps humans, i dont see anything wrong with what happened.


Replies

lithocarpus • yesterday at 6:10 PM

Old growth forest continually grows becoming richer and richer, until one of those major setbacks which often are many thousand years in between.

Old growth forest creates more wood per year per acre than second or third growth after the old growth is cut. It also produces more food for humans and habitat for wildlife. It literally stabilizes the weather and pumps moisture inland by storing water and then releasing it. It holds water in the ground so that streams don't go dry and can support fish. It is much more resilient to wildfire.

In the redwood forest for example, 95% of it was clear cut, for a short term benefit. 90% of this wood that had been accumulated by the forest over thousands of years has now burned or rotted away within 100 years, and is gone.

What we're doing now is rapidly consuming everything, and these resources are steadily declining, and will run out and the human population will crash.

But yes, I do think more abundance and diversity of life is an intrinsic good, both for its own sake and for the long term thriving of humans on earth. Like any population of animals, if we consume everything that we live on and undermine the capacity of earth to support us, we will collapse.

That said humans can figure out how to help ecosystems recover and be more abundant. So it's not all over. But clearing the old growth forest is one of the worst things we do - up there with reckless mining that contaminates water.

➕ show 1 reply
dpe82 • yesterday at 5:57 PM

A simple thing would be: those areas can no longer produce lumber. So what should have been a renewable resource was depleted after a single use.

ytoawwhra92 • today at 12:26 AM

Lots of people lived in the American west for thousands of years without clearing entire old growth forests for fire and shelter.

snapcaster • yesterday at 5:51 PM

The takeaway for me is that reality and systems in general are incredibly complex, and often doing something has second or third order effects that are almost impossible to know about ahead of time

➕ show 1 reply
throwaway_2494 • yesterday at 7:41 PM

The parent comment is constructed in a way that maximises moral provocation while minimising engagement with the all possible environmental arguments.

Move on...