Ah, but how long was it grassland? Humans have been changing the landscape for tens of thousands of years, on top of major climate changes before and during that. Much of what we call "natural" or "wild" was/is actually curated and lived in.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not really sure I'm following your point. Sure, humans have been extensively altering the environment, probably since the extinction of the megafauna if not before (which probably resulted in a lot of conversion of grassland and savanna to forest). But natural succession also occurs, and a large, even-aged monoculture planting is a different beast than gradual afforestation. We could discuss whether the tradeoffs were worth it, but "this resulted in an abrupt shift to the local water cycle in an area where water scarcity is an impediment to agricultural production" is a reasonable observation to have.

[–] Chana@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The point is that this land was not immutably grassland historically, and so the prior point re: its prior state is not inherently valid. The only question is how long it was the case, if that's what we are meant to care about.

I haven't said anything about whether it's strategically better in this case, that's just a category error re: your reply. I am highlighting that one should avoid the (often settler naturalistic fallacy mindset) that the right thing is what it "used to be", where "used to be" tends to be a somewhat mythological description of the place 50 years ago.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The point is that this land was not immutably grassland historically, and so the prior point re: its prior state is not inherently valid.

So is the assumption I was responding to, which assumed that there were trees there to cut down in the first place.

I am highlighting that one should avoid the (often settler naturalistic fallacy mindset) that the right thing is what it "used to be", where "used to be" tends to be a somewhat mythological description of the place 50 years ago

I wasn't making any normative claims about what the land should be, just pointing out that this process appears to have been afforestation of an area that, prior to this intervention, was grassland, and so the implicit assumption in the original comment that the local water cycle had already been perturbed may be wrong.

[–] Chana@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So is the assumption I was responding to, which assumed that there were trees there to cut down in the first place.

Both the comment you responded to and the comment you made had that kind of assumption. And I'm not replying to what they said...

I wasn't making any normative claims about what the land should be, just pointing out that this process appears to have been afforestation of an area that, prior to this intervention, was grassland, and so the implicit assumption in the original comment that the local water cycle had already been perturbed may be wrong.

I don't think that's what you communicated, actually.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Both the comment you responded to and the comment you made had that kind of assumption. And I'm not replying to what they said...

You did jump in on the conversation, though, so I'm trying to fill you in on context that you appear to have been missing.

I don't think that's what you communicated, actually.

You are welcome to apply the provided clarification.

[–] Chana@hexbear.net 0 points 2 days ago

Whatever

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)