And I would suggest to read the article - the main issue that locals are concerned about is not preservation of trees, but receiving profit share from cutting these trees. Fate of trees is not uncertainty - they will be gone to give place where to grow crops.
Most of CDR population does not use electricity, but if they were using electricity, they would have even more needs and trees would be cut out in even bigger rate, to sustain that lifestyle.
Having said that - Europe's forest coverage is increasing rapidly[0], and growing every year[1].
For another example, UK's forests are already up to "medieval" levels, and growing[2].
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04...
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environ...
[2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woodland-back-to-medieval...
That is not a very high standard; as far as I recall, Britain has been a cultured landscape at the very least since the Iron Age. (Related to that is the fact that medieval population of Britain has also been roughly at Iron Age levels, or vice versa. There were apparently around four million people in Iron Age Britain.)
bushes
Statistics include under "forests" also bushes and young trees. There is also issue with understanding of what forest mean - forests are not trees, but includes soil, that is built up by trees over millenia and animals - without them forest is just a plantation - animals need older trees to use them for their habitat or for gathering food. Single species of trees, that are planted in inpenetrable rows are devoid of life of what natural forests have.
Yes, I did read it and see that they wanted a cut (also, assuming people didn't read the article because they don't agree with your take is super lame). Can't say I blame them, why should they starve while the rest of the world has already gotten theirs and burned all the coal and timber they wanted. I think your idea of having historical uninterrupted forests is unrealistic and unnecessary barring all humanity dying or leaving earth for some other planet,]. I personally can't stand this degrowth mindset that would bring us back to the hunter gatherer era as it's unrealistic and unhelpful in tackling humanity's current problems. The genie is out of the bottle, no one is going back to a pure hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Edit, grammar error and changing "forests today" to "forests of recent decades" to be more precise
Your derogatory language towards forest-gatherer lifestyle means that you have not read article - that article is about hunter-gatherers who live in forests. Where else they can get their grubs, to cook? Where they can gather meat and wood?
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-...
I'm very realistic about this and trees will be chopped to insure that these people advance towards that lifestyle. Either that or they will migrate.
My take is that everyone has read in that article what they wanted to read. Even if presented here as a "saving tree" issue, this article is hardly about saving trees - at best that is a story about developing country, that has similar problems that US and previously Europe endured. Also, in the light of COP26(that everyone here has long forgotten), where rulers of Earth arrived in private jets, it really starts to show that most of people are mindless parrots and not individual thinkers, that Humans could be.
>>>but rather westerners who want to drag the world back from technological progress in a misguided attempt to save it.
I'm sure that no one wants to give up their lifestyle to do so. But that doesn't mean that they can't preach it to others...
>>>1) increasing quality of life for the most people possible, 2) preventing x-risks. I mention this so you can understand where I'm coming from.
That is a noble task and the only price for that is punishment of a Saviour. Though, I'm slightly sceptical about members of ex-colonizers providing help to ex-colonies, as from the common memory of my people, centuries old hatred does not wane if "oppressors" are still lingering around with their help...
>>>I just don't think that a malthusian/degrowth mindset will help anyone.
Neither is helping a denial about crisis. Malthusian theory is scientific attempt to describe common pattern of growth and collapses of societies. Unfortunatelly there does not seem to be anything better to describe those. Also, despite your claims, it seems, that you have that same mindset you are so dreaded about as the whole article about disappearance of trees belongs to the same doom scenario that can happen in future. Well, I for one am very deeply disappointed in those, because according to UN in 1980s, Kiribati had to be under water by 2000 and it is still there... I know, I know - the speed is not fast enough and Kiribati will face it's doom in about 100(not 50) years, but I have exactly the same attitude to other doom scenarious. Yeah, by that time people will learn how to breathe CO2 and it is outrageous, that there is an idea to deal with that, too...
>>>what if we need global coordination on a problem like asteroid avoidance or a supervolcano and humanity is extinguished because we don't have the requisite technology to tackle it?
Honestly, not our problem. Worrying about something that is not preventable is not very sane and constantly living in fear is not healthy. Anyway, if there will be such event, get your best drink and enjoy it while it lasts.
Thanks for the very evenhanded reply. I am crushed and won't have time to respond point by point for a bit but just wanted to say thank you for engaging in an interesting conversation. I do not agree with your viewpoint but respect it. If you have any articles/posts that elucidate it further I'd be happy to add it to my reading list.
I've let myself astray and not concentrating on the tasks I really have to concentrate and not this type of entertainment.