That's the theory, but forests won't grow if they've been cut down and the ground is used to grow soy.

There are big re-greening projects going on in China and Africa to try and stop the encroaching of the deserts there though (due to deforestation and agriculture). They HAVE to add forests, else they'll get the same thing that happened in the US early 1900's, the Dust Bowl where a lot of fertile ground just blew away because there was nothing holding it down.

> "Evolution is cleverer than you are" - Leslie Orgel

Evolution also works at longer timescales than we do. Sure we may end up with 60 foot ferns again 10k years from now as plant life rebounds in the carbon rich atmosphere, but that doesn't help your grandkids.

In the immortal words of George Carlin, "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked".

> In the immortal words of George Carlin, "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked"

It is well within humanity's capacity to, potentially permanently but at least for tens of millions of years, end the Earth's ability to host macroscopic life. Within a few decades, we'll likely have the ability to end the Earth's life-supporting ability period.

I get the message behind the meme. But unfortunately, our actions have consequences beyond our selves. It's easier to think we're just fucking our own when in fact we're doing much worse.

We could not end Earth's ability to support life even if we tried our best at it.

> We could not end Earth's ability to support life even if we tried our best at it

We’re within a few decades of a global superpower being able to deflect a large asteroid which would, after millennia or even centuries, impact the Earth with enough energy to melt the crust several kilometres down.

Not even with all-out nuclear warfare?

> Not even with all-out nuclear warfare?

We don't even have enough nukes to wipe out the human race, let alone the biosphere. Building enough to would likely need more uranium than we can access with known technology.

That's ... the opposite of what I was taught in History at school, but I'm no expert at this.

To me, the idea that Mother Earth is giving birth to something is very clear. I just don't know how that birth is going to end up. Will the child kill the mother? Will they both die? And what is being born? Maybe it's a space-fairing race of humans. Or maybe humans are just the eggshell that machine consciousness will break on its way out.

I think the trees are good dude: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/global-co2-concentration-...

Water is also good for you, yet you don't live at the bottom of the atlantic ocean.

> Carbon dioxide is good for trees.

Literally the first hit on Google for this phrase is exactly about this [1].

[1] https://theconversation.com/yes-more-carbon-dioxide-in-the-a...

You're repeating easily debunked denialist talking points and claiming insight when people have studied this problem for decades and discovered that no, on balance, abrupt changes in CO2 are not good for our biosphere.

You're assuming that trees can always grow faster than humans can destroy them. That may be true for 8 billion humans at current living standards but if the population grows or the living standards improve humans will figure out a way to destroy those trees very quickly.

Even NASA concedes that the last 20 years has seen the planet become greener. Humans planting trees for reforestation have almost nothing to do with that trend. People are trying to claim credit for things they have nothing to do with. The surface area of the earth is absolutely massive. Humans likely occupy less than 2% of it. Even if all humanity was mobilozed to planting trees 24/7 with the most advanced machines imaginable, our labor would mean nothing compared to what birds could do on their own by merely shitting on new pieces of fertile soil and thus inadvertantly planting the plant seeds that they consumed a few hours earlier.

Birds do more for nature using only their assholes than humanity could do with their entire beings... The birds don't even need to think about it.

> Even NASA concedes that the last 20 years has seen the planet become greener. Humans planting trees for reforestation have almost nothing to do with that trend.

Are you sure, from nasa.gov itself:

> which is thought to be due to intensive agriculture to feed growing populations and ambitious tree-planting programs

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates...

> Birds do more for nature using only their assholes than humanity could do with their entire beings..

And what do humans do to birds ?

> Human activity is the greatest cause of bird extinction around the world. The top human causes of bird extinction involve: the increased human population, destruction of habitat (through development for habitation, logging, animal and single-crop agriculture, and invasive plants), ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_extinction

CO2 may be good for plants, but plants cannot grow if the temperature gets too hot or their soil gets flooded by sea water.

> I look forward to further decentralization of forests

This sounds like something that you would read in a whitepaper for TreeCoin