It mostly has to do with short-term vs long-term thinking.
In the long term, selective harvesting, or simply leaving a forest intact, will let you reap various benefits (wood, flood control, and so on). But, in the short term, it can be more economically beneficial to clear-cut the land--either because you want all the wood, or (more likely) because you want to plant something else there.
In a lot of rainforest areas, patches of rainforest are clear-cut primarily to grow subsistence or cash crops--grains, palm oil, sugar cane, cattle, coffee, and so on. This actually *can* be done sustainably (if it's done in small patches, and any given patch is allowed to recover for something like 20 years between clear-cutting), but otherwise is a spectacularly stupid thing to do, because of the properties of rainforest soils.
Rainforests, by definition, have a lot of rain. This leaches minerals out of the soil. In a sense, rainforest soils are so nutrient-poor that they effectively have a negative amount of key nutrients, such as phosphorus. They can also have so much aluminum that they are actively toxic to any plant not adapted to the soil. Slash-and-burn agriculture (cutting down the jungle, burning the plants, then planting things on the ashes) works--for a little while. The crops grow in the newly enriched soil, and are happy for a few years (max, sometimes just one). But then the rain leaches away the nutrients again, and you're back to soil that can't support any plant life that isn't well adapted to it.
Deforestation is less common in the United States compared to less developed countries. Contrary to popular belief deforestation is not primarily caused by paper companies. Nearly 95% of deforestation is caused by timber companies and agricultural companies. In countries where this happens there are less laws prohibiting deforestation and poorly established governments. In the U.S. Paper companies plant their own trees and cut them down and repeat the process. This is cheaper because they can plant the type of tree best for paper and put the perfect amount of space between the trees in the perfect environmental conditions. Unfortunately, many tree companies use fertilizers which are harmful to the environment.
There are good reason and there are bad reasons. One good reason is, like Jim Z says. There are times when too many trees can kill other more valuable trees.
So many people want nature take its course and let everything hang out, to coin an old hippie expression. That is not what God intended, nor is it being a good steward.
Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. KJV
You can plainly see that Our Heavenly Creator didn't just put man here on Earth to sit idle, but to take care of the plants and animals.
So does that make it alright for man to wantonly and indiscriminately to destroy jungles and forests? No, that is not living with nature either.
So where do you draw the line?
Quote by Christian Anton Mayer, aka Carl Amery, German environmentalist and writer: "We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
You may say, "That is too strong." Well that is the stated end agenda of the greenies, and 30 years ago we would have laughed at the very idea that there would be serious bill introduced to the US legislation that would tax cow farts. Now it is a reality, and you wonder why we are afraid of your movement.
You extreme alarm-ism shows that you are unaware that there are more trees in the US now than there were when Columbus discovered this continent. Take South Dakota for example, I am using that along with Jim Z because it is the "Land of Infinite Variety", On the Eastern side it used to be virtually barren. Check the Lewis and Clark Journals.The reason for this is because a giant glacier smoothed out the Eastern area of South Dakota much like an iron smooths out clothes, the tip of it coming down as far as Sioux City. During the homestead act for that area, the homesteaders were given trees to plant. Now go out to that area and see the trees, 90% of which were a direct result of that activity. However at the other end of the state you see logging industries. For every tree they cut down, they plant three. There are places there that were President Roosevelt's summer retreat and are much the same as they were years ago, thanks to the diligent and hard work of the Forest Rangers. Yes they discriminately chop down trees but it obviously is a good thing.
Yes there are people who pervert the earth by over deforesting. There are people who pervert sex too. As far as the forest is concerned, there are local, national and international laws preventing wanton destruction of the forests and jungles.
As far as that damaging our ecosystem, there is no reasonable scientific proof that it does.
Trees provide a number of resources, chief among them are wood for construction. Since they are alive, they can be replanted. It is cheaper for lumber companies to harvest vast sections of forest and then replant them with selected trees. The main problem with this approach is that it results in an unhealthy ecosystem. In South Dakota, where I was raised, the forest service goes out and marks selected trees. This way, the forest gets thinned and stays healthy. There isn't a wholesale removal of ecologically valuable plants and animals.
Too often in poorer countries, the leaders are too willing to take short term gains and sometimes clear cut rainforests that don't easily recover and the resource is lost to future generations. Another cause of deforestation is cutting down rainforest to grow palm oil and sugar cane for biofuels. Sometimes people just need a place to live and the forest is cut down to make room for cities and houses.
Explain why people might continue these activities, even though they are damaging the ecosystem that the people depend on for survival. Thank you :)
