No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I hope it doesn't happen, but logging doesn't work exactly like the lorax. They need to ensure a future to the industry, so they'd do chucks and replant. No, it's not the same as it would have been, but it's at least less devastating than strip mining the Grand canyon.
Well, it depends. On short leases, it does work exactly like the lorax. They just clear cut that shit as hard as they can to maximize how much money they can make on it. Montana and some other northern states eventually figured out that you should set these companies up with 100 year leases that pierce the corporate veil, so that even if the company strip cuts the plot and declares bankruptcy, you can go give the owner a big fat financial wedgie for the next 100 years. I think it's a pretty smart solution, and from what I've heard, the companies in these arrangements do pretty good forest management.
I've honestly never heard of this. Could you link me to an article or something that I could read to learn more?
Jared Diamond wrote about it in Collapse, where he covers how we handle extractive industries and how we could better regulate them. That's where I learned about it. I tried finding an article about it, and I could find stuff talking about the policy indirectly, but nothing directly about it.
Even if they replant, that doesn’t undue the ecological harm. Look at what happened when palm oil started to show up in everything. They cut down all the natural habitat (rain forests with lots of old growth!) and planted tons of palm trees. It killed all the wildlife, but to an uninformed person, it still “looked” like nature. And the fact that they were replanted (so it wasn’t just stripped bare) was a facade that made it not seem bad.
Old growth doesn't work like this. Logging companies are constantly trying to take bigger swaths than they're allotted because there's no active enforcement leaving orgs like BARK OUT et. al. To do the ground truthing and sue in court, often after the damage is done.
Often logging companies want this wood because it's much higher quality than second growth. The dense wood is a higher grade and sells for a higher premium. If you've seen wood in an old house versus modern you'll notice the ring structure much more tightly packed and less knotting. It's much stronger.
Here's a maps image of old growth in the mt. Hood wilderness:
And here's the Oregon coast range:
notice the patchwork? That it's roughly 1/3 unplanted clear-cut now?
The first image is 100% old growth in a national forest. The second is 0%, in mostly privately owned land owned by logging companies or less so under BLM/FS. Patchwork logging doesn't sustain biodiversity. Replanting is almost always done with a monoculture of trees that make logging easier in later harvests. These second growth forests hold less water, sequester less carbon, and are less drought resistant. This in turn makes them more prone to wildfire, flooding, erosion, and desertification. They are also less food abundant so they can't sustain as much wildlife.
Most of western Oregon looks like the second image, and the old growth is only 10% of the original area nation wide. We don't need to log old growth at all. There's plenty of second growth. Just manage it.
E: structure