[carapace]

FWIW, my limited understanding is that initially, in Japan, the focus was on restoring the native forests, conserving Japanese species and ecosystems.

> So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake?

I favor E. O. Wilson's proposal that we set aside half the Earth as a nature preserve and more-or-less let evolution do it's thing. Which half is, of course, an open question, eh?

One way or another, I doubt we can avoid continent-scale ecological management.

[renewiltord]

Which half is always this problem. It's compounded by the fact that Europeans have scourged their land of anything worthwhile - relegating nature to tiny preserves and replacing most wilderness with farms and cities. Often these same people insist that other nations avoid developing and "preserve" their land. How about we raze Europe's cities and give half her land back to Nature first.

[carapace]

"Well, where's the fun in that?"

Mother Nature is perfectly capable of razing cities herself if that's what she wanted to do, eh?

People seem to be coming around, regenerative agriculture is taking off, we're starting to ween ourselves off of fossil fuel. I think there's hope.

[KaiserPro]

because the cities don't have that much land. its the farm land one would need to reclaim

[_jal]

> Which half is, of course, an open question, eh?

This approach would of course favor species that thrive in toxic waste, radiation and trash mountains.