I'm fine with admitting when I'm wrong, but it is actually debated whether or not we have more trees than ever. It's not like it's unbelievable, we have a lot of tree. Yeah we cut lots of them down, but but there's over 3 trillion of them.
I'm almost speechless.. but let's try. Yes, we have a lot of trees, but humans have cut a hell of a lot of them down, it's not hard to reason that there were way, way more before we invented agricultural technology and spread out to blanket the earth.
I agree with that. I believe the contention here was that I was speaking in a broader sense of there being more trees now, even with some of them cut down in the past hundred or so years (with the advent of modern industrial logging), we have more than has been on earth for the majority of its existance.
I still stand by the notion that we don't need to worry about the trees being cut down because we have a fuck ton of them.
You're still not owning up to your mistake. This is what you said:
"Ever before" does not mean the last 50 or hundred years, it means we have more trees now than than ever before. It's not a complicated sentence.
You seem to be confused by large numbers. Perhaps according to you I own a fuck ton of gold if I count the atoms and obtain a large number. The number of trees is large, but we do not have enough, environmentally the world would benefit from a lot more.
Hey... (in a strangely coincidental way)
12,000 years ago, before the advent of agriculture, Earth had twice as many trees as it does now. Currently, our planet is losing 10 million trees a year.
Hence:
is wrong. I hope that removes all ambiguity.
(post is archived)