[petesergeant]

It’s only not a convincing counter point if you’re a fantasist thinking we should be living in a Bronze Age utopia.

I suspect if pressed this would turn out to be Motte and Bailey argument where:

Motte: deforestation and draining wet lands is bad

Bailey: we should reduce the global population by 95% so we can live without modern agriculture

[kibwen]

> if you’re a fantasist thinking we should be living in a Bronze Age utopia.

Bronze Age people were smart enough to live in places with easy access to fresh water, so they're demonstrably wiser than whoever came up with this proposal.

[petesergeant]

> Bronze Age people were smart enough to live in places with easy access to fresh water

But not wise enough to invent antibiotics so it’s a head-scratcher; am I willing to put up with pumped water to avoid dying of cholera and lockjaw?

[sokoloff]

Also probably about 1 out of 16 of us would be living at all.

[DubiousPusher]

This is a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between total exploitation of the biosphere and poverty. Nowhere did I say that European development should have been minimized. I simply said the example of European development was not a good argument for attempting to transform the environment of the American West.

Let's look at the chain of argument. The poster was countering an assertion that humans have created massive ecological turmoil by seeking to fundamentally reshape the Earth. Their counter was that Europe was once forest and swamp. I can only assume they meant that we take for granted that the present condition of Europe is good and because it was once mostly "just" forest and swamp that Europe demonstrates that these transformations are acceptable or even preferable and therefore we should do them.

I think this is a bad argument because it contains many assumptions and implications which I think are false.

Assumptions: #1 The magnitude of exploitation of Europe was necessary to achieve modern life.

#2 The development of modern European life occurred on an ideal or preferable timeline and things would not be better if this process had been gentler to the environment and taken an additional 1,000 years.

#3 The ecosystems of the American West are not more unique or prized than the temperate forests of Europe and their loss represents a similar loss therefore justifying the trade off.

#4 Wilderness, despite its increasing scarcity is not more valuable today than it was 1,000 years ago.

#5 Exploitation of the American West would have a similar economic and developmental impact as the exploitation of primeval Europe and therefore represents a worthwhile trade off.

I don't think any of the above should be taken for granted.