The time of deforestation of Europe is a few decades behind us, I think. Certainly in the EU, forest areas are growing slowly (by about 10% since 1990, according to https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache...)

I don’t think the forests will (soon) return to what was there in Roman times, though. There’s a lot less, and of lower age (I don’t think Caesar’s men would find it as easy to find the huge trees they used to build a bridge over the Rhine in today’s forest as they found it two thousand years ago)

Europe and the middle east are like gallery of civilisations or cultures that once were magnificent and then screwed up so badly that went extinct.

Don't care enough about Geology? Here is a Volcano for you. Now people can see your remains for 20 Euros. You had a life too good and you were too self important to bother to pay attention to those who are not having the best life? Here is a guillotine for you. You were too obsessed with inner politics to care about what's going on in outside of your walled garden? Here is an invasion for you. You made a revolution with no idea how to proceed afterwards? Enjoy your life in your commie blocks when hiding from the mafia. You thought the steel was the only produce that people need? Enjoy being unemployed in a very polluted place.

Not paying attention to the nature or obsessing with politics can definitely bring societies down and the old continent is full with examples of it. It happened many times before, can happen again but this time in huge scale.

It is not new for any species. Others just have no means to reason about it.

So it's a natural phenomenon?

Uh, yes. No other animal species pontificates about living in harmony with nature, or preserving the balance, or anything of the sort. They're all fighting tooth and nail to survive and, if successful, outcompete.

We're only exceptional in that we're so successful, and that we sometimes contemplate deliberately limiting our growth.

It’s true that - as far as we know - no other animal species cares about preserving the environment. But, you could argue that we care because we must. We worsen our chance of survival by messing up the environment to a point where it heavily affects our lives. Maybe, animals don’t care because they can’t do as much damage as us.

My impression is that other animal species generally are in harmony with nature:

Non-human animals seem not to be inclined not to, in general, exhaust existing resources. They seem to have no interest in this, even where it would give them a monopolistic economic advantage over their competitors. You don't see animals hunting for sport.

On the other hand, bacteria and viruses will exhaust the resources given to them, and thus end up limiting their own growth. Humans are not so exceptional in this regard.

> Non-human animals seem not to be inclined not to, in general, exhaust existing resources.

They certainly do, if given the chance. Boom-bust cycles caused by resource overextraction are common throughout the animal kingdom. The only reason that it isn't apparent to you is because you don't pay a lot of attention to animal resource supplies, and because over a long enough timeframe new equilibriums are sometimes formed until some other external impact comes into play.

Re:hunting for sport, cats are the most famous example as mentioned by the sibling commenter, but you also see it with other predators. Play is very common in the animal kingdom and its often violent. I've seen coyotes and foxes kill smaller animals and leave them uneaten many times.

Humans are simply better at resource extraction than other animals. The underlying behavior is not notable.

> The only reason that it isn't apparent to you

It is apparent to me that no other species (ever) has been implicated in a mass extinction event.

I notice both commenters referenced cats - a domesticated and invasive species.

> Humans are simply better at resource extraction than other animals.

Claiming that humans are 'better' ignores my point that bacteria will happily exhaust whatever resources are given to them.

> Claiming that humans are 'better' ignores my point that bacteria will happily exhaust whatever resources are given to them.

So will most other animals. This isn't something unique to humans.

> I notice both commenters referenced cats - a domesticated and invasive species.

Foxes and coyotes, which I mentioned, aren't. Most predators do this (gratuitous killing) to some degree or another. Even some none-predators engage in "pointless" violent aggression towards other species.

> It is apparent to me that no other species (ever) has been implicated in a mass extinction event.

Only because most other species (since cyanobacteria) are drawing from a more limited pool of resources. Other species certainly do radically transform their local ecosystems which leads to disruption until other species move in to fill the new niches. What makes humans different is that our "resources" encompass a much broader area and array of material than other animals.

There is no steady state in the absence of human intervention. I am not claiming that humans are 'better.' They aren't. They're just another animal, just one unusually adaptable thanks to big brains, language, and thumbs. I'm not assigning any more value to that. In the long run, it might be a 'bad' thing, in that, as the comments here show, we tend to be much too proud of those big brains.

> It is apparent to me that no other species (ever) has been implicated in a mass extinction event.

Not for lack of trying. Usually another species or the limited size of its habitable area will stop a species before it has a global impact, but if you focus on smaller ecosystems, you get the typical rabbit-and-hare boom-and-bust cycle resulting in extinction of both fairly regularly.

Cats commonly hunt for sport and have caused the extinction of a few species. Gorillas will go to war with other groups. Plenty of human traits have analogues in other species.

I don't think any other species has upset the ecological balance to such an extent that it becomes unlivable for them

Unfortunately, the overpopulation of some species can cause havoc to the environment as well and can even lead to an environmental collapse (e.g. desertification). From mammals to viruses and bacteria there can always be unaccounted dominant force. Two examples come to my mind, 1) the lack of predators can lead to overpopulation and total exhaustion of the habitat (currently happening in the central Europe), 2) world supply of bananas being endangered by Panama disease. Who knows, maybe one day humanity will be conquered by super-corona

Although humanity sucks for centuries, we could make the argument, that the 20th century was the century where there was more done for the environment than in the last millennia. Many species that were considered displaced or even extinct have returned to their natural habitat and reclaimed their native land. Science and education showed us the right way forward, making cities way cleaner than ever before. I do not know how about you but I am glad that streets are not littered with human and animal waste and air is not filled with methane and pollutants from coal combustion. Sure, there were plenty of mistakes made (uhm..uhm...atom bomb testing), but we live in the best era in the last 100000s years. Only thing that I see as very unfortunate nowadays is that the environment become a politicised issue (in a sense that facts are neglected by both sides of the debate and are replaced by empty rhetoric and disinformation that is used for political gains and moral high-ground. The fact that there is even a separation into different environmental camps is the most ridiculous event in human history since that time a pirate became a pope!)

edit: repeated words

But the environment is deeply political! A seemingly simple decision can be fraught with unintended consequences across different groups of people. Just allowing or banning a pesticide could have impact on human health, insect population, birds, pollinators, the livelihood of farmers, and rural economies. Politics is the system we have invented to deal with this complexity, and we should accept that people will have conflicting views in the same way as any other issue.

I think people have tried to artificially de-politicize the environment into something technocratic. But there is no scientific formula that can justify destroying a coal miners livelihood in favor of renewables. That is justified because fighting climate change and air pollution is the right thing to do. That is a moral and a political choice.

"a politicised issue (in a sense that facts are neglected by both sides of the debate and are replaced by empty rhetoric and disinformation that is used for political gains and moral high-ground...)"

Perhaps I was not clear enough, which is quite typical for me, BUT I agree with you 100%! It is important to question and debate this issue through a political system.

What I mean is that the current political culture in various countries has turned this process into a joke and I am not sure if we can even have a civil debate on this topic ever again. Hell, most conversations I have regarding pesticides end up in name calling and ridiculous oversimplifications of reality. I actually gave up on having these discussions altogether. That is my point, I hope I am more clear this time as I do not wish to cause any confusion.

Edit: tone...I unintentionally sounded passive-aggressive

Also there is more forest than before.

Where? Could you quantify that in hectares or acres?

The trend is upward over the last 40 years (about 7% more global forest cover now than in 1982[0]) but I don’t think the data exist to extrapolate further back to, say, the beginning of the 20th century.

[0]: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse...

Edit: oh god 1982 was almost 40 years ago not 30. Tempus fugit.

Wood was the main form of fuel, until very recently.

The forests that have grown back are not as healthy as the old growth. In the NE of America, the oaks and transitional maples have greatly diminished. Faster growing, and invasive species have taken their place. Less diversity in the wildlife, as the new trees don't provide the same amount of shelter.

The importance of grasslands are overlooked. The prairies in NA have been turned into a monoculture nightmare. Grasses grow fast and are great at capturing carbon, providing food, and habitat for animals.

That comes as a surprise to me. Thanks for linking to the article.

In France at least. Our forests have been growing faster than we cut them for a few decades.