Current Events > New drones plant 100,000 trees a day for 20% of the cost of human labor

(+) Yeah! (+)

Questionmarktarius posted...

Rexdragon125 posted...

http://www.saveamericasforests.org/pages/educationcda.htm

There's just no way humans could possibly restore the biodiversity of a natural forest, not to mention the soil erosion. A lot of replants are monocultures. I know there are better methods of logging than clear cutting, but its use is still very common.

Here you go:
https://www.landandfarm.com/search/Natural-Forest-for-sale/

damn now i wanna buy some land

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Rexdragon125 posted...

http://www.saveamericasforests.org/pages/educationcda.htm

There's just no way humans could possibly restore the biodiversity of a natural forest, not to mention the soil erosion. A lot of replants are monocultures. I know there are better methods of logging than clear cutting, but its use is still very common.

can you please link to a peer reviewed source

Really? You need a peer reviewed source for something that not only obvious, but self evident? Plus I'm pretty sure most would say common knowledge.

i mean i'd like to see a peer reviewed source that says that we damage the environment beyond repair no matter what

or is it just clickbait since nature itself undoes biodiversity all the time and it's just a natural part of life
---

Maybe someone just needs to find a better use for hedge than badass campfires...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

i mean i'd like to see a peer reviewed source that says that we damage the environment beyond repair no matter what

or is it just clickbait since nature itself undoes biodiversity all the time and it's just a natural part of life

Really? You seriously didn't know that already? I mean especially with the news that our antibiotics have been becoming obsolete, the focus on preserving biodiversity hotspots around the world is pretty well known, and through that we know that himans destroy biodiversity when we destroy eco systems, which is pretty self evident anyways.

And no nature does not "undo" biodiversity on it's own.... I think you just have a misunderstanding of what biodiversity actually is.
---

nicklebro posted...

And no nature does not "undo" biodiversity on it's own....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_boundary

I'm 28 and I literally print everything
---

No, I don't know that already. I don't know everything, contrary to some CEmen who are beyond wise.

I think that it's a bit of a red herring to say that logging does damage to the ecosystem at large - maybe it damages specific ecosystems wherever we log, but that doesn't mean that we can't section off vast swaths of land for preservation a la the national park system or learn how to replant the same trees that we cut down.

How is logging different from a natural disaster that wipes out a forest?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

nicklebro posted...

And no nature does not "undo" biodiversity on it's own....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_boundary

Climate change is not nature undoing biodiversity in any sense of the word, let alone the way proudclad was asserting.
---

nicklebro posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

nicklebro posted...

And no nature does not "undo" biodiversity on it's own....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_boundary

Climate change is not nature undoing biodiversity in any sense of the word, let alone the way proudclad was asserting.

I mean it literally is. The only difference now is that humans contribute to pollution, but the climate has changed before and eliminated entire species. (shrug)
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

No, I don't know that already. I don't know everything, contrary to some CEmen who are beyond wise.

I think that it's a bit of a red herring to say that logging does damage to the ecosystem at large - maybe it damages specific ecosystems wherever we log, but that doesn't mean that we can't section off vast swaths of land for preservation a la the national park system or learn how to replant the same trees that we cut down.

How is logging different from a natural disaster that wipes out a forest?

There isn't an "eco systems at large" there are just eco systems.

And question requires a very involved answer I'm not totally equipped to handle, but long story short logging and natural disasters are not comparable. Ecosystems evolved to deal with the occasional natural disasters like how some ecosystems have fire proof trees that prevent entire forests from being burnt down, but in logging that biodiversity is not profitable, they only plant the tree they want to cut down, so that forest is now susceptible to a plethora of dangers it wasn't before
---

nicklebro posted...

And question requires a very involved answer I'm not totally equipped to handle,

Hence why I asked for a peer-reviewed source rather than Rexdragon's blog.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

I mean it literally is. The only difference now is that humans contribute to pollution, but the climate has changed before and eliminated entire species. (shrug)

Calling climate change "nature" is like calling an asteroid impact "nature"

You said nature "undoes biodiversity" all the time
So no, you can't be using climate change as your explanation for that since that's only happened a few of times in the history of the earth.

There's quite a big difference between disrupting biodiversity on a massive scale every few years and every few millions years.
---

More than 99 percent of all the species that have ever lived on earth are extinct, though. Every few million years on a planet that has hundreds of millions of years of life on it...is pretty frequent. >:)
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

And question requires a very involved answer I'm not totally equipped to handle,

Hence why I asked for a peer-reviewed source rather than Rexdragon's blog.

Or you could just alter your question to not require such an involved answer. The question of "what's the difference between logging and natural disasters?" Is so involved because those two things are not even close to being the same thing. If you asked if forests are better equipped to handle natural disasters than they are logging, that's a much simpler answer that still gets to the root of you misunderstanding.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

If you found a $50 Bill on the ground you'd feel nothing but anger that it wasn't a $100.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

More than 99 percent of all the species that have ever lived on earth are extinct, though. Every few million years on a planet that has hundreds of millions of years of life on it...is pretty frequent. >:)

Billions of years, not just hundreds of millions. And I'm taking that face as an admission that you're being facetious since we're literally comparing it to logging which has been hundreds of years
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

nicklebro posted...

And no nature does not "undo" biodiversity on it's own....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_boundary

Climate change is not nature undoing biodiversity in any sense of the word, let alone the way proudclad was asserting.

I mean it literally is. The only difference now is that humans contribute to pollution, but the climate has changed before and eliminated entire species. (shrug)

Last I looked, humans are nature.

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

nicklebro posted...

And no nature does not "undo" biodiversity on it's own....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_boundary

Climate change is not nature undoing biodiversity in any sense of the word, let alone the way proudclad was asserting.

I mean it literally is. The only difference now is that humans contribute to pollution, but the climate has changed before and eliminated entire species. (shrug)

Last I looked, humans are nature.

Lol
---

bump
---

ConfessPlease posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

ConfessPlease posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

if by "win" you mean "starts to undo some of the horrible shit they've done" then sure. im not saying that this isn't cool, it definitely is. but don't forget that the massive deforestation that's given rise to a need for such drones was also caused by capitalism's unquenchable greed.

Lmao you don't know shit about the timber industry.

instead of laughing at my ignorance it would be super cool if you could educate me on what i got wrong

Timber companies plant more trees than they cut down. Why wouldn't they have reforestation? That would be incredibly dumb since it's their biggest assets. A lot of companies plant 2 tress for every 1 they cut down to keep certain certificates.

fair point, but deforestation is caused by industries outside of timber that don't have a vested interest in trees being replanted. industries like the cattle industry, or other farming where they just want the land.
---