chatelot16 wrote:
if it was only a store we would have already emptied it for a long time: it is rather a factory which produces regularly: we can therefore take as long as we do not take too much
Better and better! A factory! Who says better?
a wild forest destroys everything it produces: a well-exploited forest is much more useful:
It is a purely anthropocentric vision!
there is no longer a wild forest in France: the most beautiful forests that we see are human cultures!
I absolutely do not agree.
In terms of beauty, a primary forest has nothing to do with an exploited forest.
Of course, forests can be exploited, but it is necessary to leave spaces entirely natural.
The exploitation obligatorily induces nuisances on the biodiversity, moreover the man in his will to want everything profitable with tendency to select only the essences most advantageous to his advantage.
with us in France there is a lot of abandoned area that could be transformed into a productive forest ... I think of the areas where there is too much risk of forest fires: we could transform scrub and brush into productive forest
The areas affected by forest fires are simply a state of affairs.
In nature there is no one to put out the fires, this allows you to renew the essences and allow the young shoots to develop.
Given global warming (anthropogenic or natural), it would be very naive to want to change the inevitable, it's like wanting to green the desert on one side and massively deforesting on the other.