Growth out of decay takes work, but it takes considerably less work than accelerated decay and then trying to start again when there is nothing fertile left to build on.
I like this article because it demonstrates that there is always fertile land and opportunities where people are not looking.
Indeed. This is why conservation of habitats (however small, or degraded) makes more sense than trying to restore already-destroyed areas.
That said: if I could pick an area to work on for myself, I'd go for a stretch of wasteland. Why? Because the before-after difference would be more stark (read: more satisfying). And heavily degraded lands are in muuuch bigger supply than little-degraded areas.
More important would be a general willingness of the locals to not interfere with restauration efforts.
> I like this article because it demonstrates that there is always fertile land and opportunities where people are not looking.
Stronger: "fertile" isn't strictly needed. Fertile soil can be built - if necessary, starting from 'scratch' (yes it does take time). Basically: grow stuff (anything is better than nothing), mulch (bio-waste is free), keep doing so, and whatever soil you started with, will improve over time.
As the soil improves, plants grow better & other life returns.
Even if there are many opportunities as you say, if the general momentum of society has three destructive acts for every one good one and that doesn't change, then society is still as destructive as ever.
For instance, for people who care deeply about nature and the non-human aspects of the planet, human society is incredibly destructive and hasn't done much to change that direction, regardless of how many feel-good projects have occurred.
Homo sapiens is 300,000 years old, Homo erectus 2 million years. Modern civilization might not last on the order of 10,000 years, industrial civilization maybe not even 500 - or perhaps "forever", if we make it to controllable runaway technological improvement?
The US has one of the highest median incomes in the world adjusted for cost of living:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/incomes-across-distributi...
The fraction of the US population living on $30 or less per day is comparable to Sweden:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/poverty-share-on-less-tha...
Our education system also looks pretty good in international comparisons:
https://xcancel.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/17320875113279081...
News focuses on the negatives, but we're doing reasonably well in absolute terms. Big random changes are likely to cause regression to the international mean, which is generally below the US on most metrics.
It's because the powers that be do not want to make the society we want. They want to make the society they want, often at our expense. Therefore they must be torn down.
Of course with libertarians, it's never about the purity of thought, just the convenience to their pocketbook