I don’t think the forests will (soon) return to what was there in Roman times, though. There’s a lot less, and of lower age (I don’t think Caesar’s men would find it as easy to find the huge trees they used to build a bridge over the Rhine in today’s forest as they found it two thousand years ago)
Don't care enough about Geology? Here is a Volcano for you. Now people can see your remains for 20 Euros. You had a life too good and you were too self important to bother to pay attention to those who are not having the best life? Here is a guillotine for you. You were too obsessed with inner politics to care about what's going on in outside of your walled garden? Here is an invasion for you. You made a revolution with no idea how to proceed afterwards? Enjoy your life in your commie blocks when hiding from the mafia. You thought the steel was the only produce that people need? Enjoy being unemployed in a very polluted place.
Not paying attention to the nature or obsessing with politics can definitely bring societies down and the old continent is full with examples of it. It happened many times before, can happen again but this time in huge scale.
We're only exceptional in that we're so successful, and that we sometimes contemplate deliberately limiting our growth.
Non-human animals seem not to be inclined not to, in general, exhaust existing resources. They seem to have no interest in this, even where it would give them a monopolistic economic advantage over their competitors. You don't see animals hunting for sport.
On the other hand, bacteria and viruses will exhaust the resources given to them, and thus end up limiting their own growth. Humans are not so exceptional in this regard.
They certainly do, if given the chance. Boom-bust cycles caused by resource overextraction are common throughout the animal kingdom. The only reason that it isn't apparent to you is because you don't pay a lot of attention to animal resource supplies, and because over a long enough timeframe new equilibriums are sometimes formed until some other external impact comes into play.
Re:hunting for sport, cats are the most famous example as mentioned by the sibling commenter, but you also see it with other predators. Play is very common in the animal kingdom and its often violent. I've seen coyotes and foxes kill smaller animals and leave them uneaten many times.
Humans are simply better at resource extraction than other animals. The underlying behavior is not notable.
It is apparent to me that no other species (ever) has been implicated in a mass extinction event.
I notice both commenters referenced cats - a domesticated and invasive species.
> Humans are simply better at resource extraction than other animals.
Claiming that humans are 'better' ignores my point that bacteria will happily exhaust whatever resources are given to them.
So will most other animals. This isn't something unique to humans.
> I notice both commenters referenced cats - a domesticated and invasive species.
Foxes and coyotes, which I mentioned, aren't. Most predators do this (gratuitous killing) to some degree or another. Even some none-predators engage in "pointless" violent aggression towards other species.
> It is apparent to me that no other species (ever) has been implicated in a mass extinction event.
Only because most other species (since cyanobacteria) are drawing from a more limited pool of resources. Other species certainly do radically transform their local ecosystems which leads to disruption until other species move in to fill the new niches. What makes humans different is that our "resources" encompass a much broader area and array of material than other animals.
There is no steady state in the absence of human intervention. I am not claiming that humans are 'better.' They aren't. They're just another animal, just one unusually adaptable thanks to big brains, language, and thumbs. I'm not assigning any more value to that. In the long run, it might be a 'bad' thing, in that, as the comments here show, we tend to be much too proud of those big brains.
Not for lack of trying. Usually another species or the limited size of its habitable area will stop a species before it has a global impact, but if you focus on smaller ecosystems, you get the typical rabbit-and-hare boom-and-bust cycle resulting in extinction of both fairly regularly.
edit: repeated words
I think people have tried to artificially de-politicize the environment into something technocratic. But there is no scientific formula that can justify destroying a coal miners livelihood in favor of renewables. That is justified because fighting climate change and air pollution is the right thing to do. That is a moral and a political choice.
Perhaps I was not clear enough, which is quite typical for me, BUT I agree with you 100%! It is important to question and debate this issue through a political system.
What I mean is that the current political culture in various countries has turned this process into a joke and I am not sure if we can even have a civil debate on this topic ever again. Hell, most conversations I have regarding pesticides end up in name calling and ridiculous oversimplifications of reality. I actually gave up on having these discussions altogether. That is my point, I hope I am more clear this time as I do not wish to cause any confusion.
Edit: tone...I unintentionally sounded passive-aggressive
[0]: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse...
Edit: oh god 1982 was almost 40 years ago not 30. Tempus fugit.
The forests that have grown back are not as healthy as the old growth. In the NE of America, the oaks and transitional maples have greatly diminished. Faster growing, and invasive species have taken their place. Less diversity in the wildlife, as the new trees don't provide the same amount of shelter.
The importance of grasslands are overlooked. The prairies in NA have been turned into a monoculture nightmare. Grasses grow fast and are great at capturing carbon, providing food, and habitat for animals.