[apelapan]

Wealth is a sharper answer than capitalism, even though it is an overlapping one.

To manage forrests and and other agriculture in the traditional way, we need extreme amounts of extreme poverty. We need millions and millions of people who are happy to spend 14 hours per day collecting sticks and tending sheep in the woods, in exchange for nothing more than a bowl of porridge. And they need to this every day all their lives.

We don't have that kind of poverty since capitalism took over from feudalism.

There are other ways than capitalism to build wealth in a society, but to the degree that they work and actually reduce poverty, they will have the same outcome.

[jimnotgym]

I would happily live in the forest and keep a subsistence holding whilst managing the forest. Just give me minimum wage, a small startup grant, a couple of hundred acres of forest and freedom from property taxes.... I'll bundle all the sticks up for kindling. I'll create firebreaks, increase diversity. Genuine offer

[apelapan]

Minimum wage is at least 10x too much. You would have no ownership and no startup grant.

There would also be no property taxes, but on the other hand there would also be no tax funded services like healthcare or education.

[Ma8ee]

I’m referring to the climate disaster in my last comment. It’s global warming that is the main culprit. There has never been a class of people tending Canada’s forests by collecting sticks.

[rightbyte]

I don't think multispecies plantations with thinning (until the trees are big enough) requires serfs eating only porridge.

Like, there are motor saws nowadays.