[wombatmobile]

Regarding deforestation, prebrov, that didn't happen in the way that, for example, the Amazon was deforested in 20th century South America by clear felling old growth forests to produce coffee and soy mono-cultures.

Australian aborigines used fire to cultivate the land in mosaic patterns of cleared grasslands forested conserves. The result was an altered landscape which retained natural ecosystems whilst supporting human and animal populations sustainably.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/indigenous-burning-be...

[prebrov]

I don’t argue that it happened the same way. Impact sure took longer than what we can achieve with modern technology, but the fact remains. Humans arrived into the last jungles of Pangea, and by the time of European colonisation, Australia was a Red Continent, with Eucalyptus being the dominant large plant.

There seems to be a strong indication that human activity contributed significantly to the climate change in Australia.

Not belittling the choices humans make to opt-out of the modern civilisation, but romanticising and mythologising “closeness to nature” just isn’t productive. Profound effect on the environment is a feature of all life forms, and sustainability isn’t really on any life form’s agenda.

Who’s to say that Cyanobacteria aren’t “close to nature”? Yet buggers were so successful, and polluted atmosphere with oxygen so badly, nearly all life went extinct. Even that worked quite well in the end.

[mc32]

One big difference, I imagine, is the population that forest is being extracted for. The Amazon isn't only being extracted while sustaining 100s of millions of South Americans (prior to colonization AUS had fewer than a million inhabitants), but also serving the world's demands. So I think it's different although in balance both unsustainably.

[wombatmobile]

Yes, it's a vastly bigger population now, mc32, and that's what is unsustainable. The vastly bigger population is still increasing at a rapid clip, but the forests and the oceans are not.