> You know, I've seen this claim before, about forest acreage increasing,
but I
> don't quite buy it, based purely on my own experience.
Lawrence writes:
<< Your personal experience may have nothing to do with the national average.
For instance, only 14% of American women have college degrees, yet easily
over half of my female friends have college degrees. I do not know enough 80
year old women, and poor Hispanics, and inner city slum dwellers, to bring
my own circle of friends more in line with the national average. How about
you?>>
Les writes:
I'm well aware that personal experience doesn't equal the average case. In your example about college degrees though, it's easy to see why it wouldn't, simply from a "general" (non-specialist) knowledge of history and society. You've identified the variables; the whiter, richer, and younger you are, the more likely it is your friends will have degrees.
In the forest example, though, personal experience and non-specialist knowledge and logic doesn't lead to the self-evident conclusion that there would be more forested land now than in 1900.
There are more people in the US than in 1900. Certainly, there are way more people here in the west than there were in 1900. They all eat, live in some kind of shelter, use roads, shopping malls, parking lots, paper, furniture, etc. etc. Balance that against: we no longer build ships with so much wood; it takes less farmland to feed one person, most people no longer heat their homes with wood, we don't build houses with as much wood.
Lawrence wrote:
<< As to regrowth of the forests, I've often heard the numbers cited, with
variations, all arguing that we've far more woods now then we had in 1900.
Supposedly around 1900 most of the east coast was stripped bare as the wood was needed for ships and fuel...
Balance that out with all the farms that have gone bankrupt and the land,
once plowed, that now has trees on it. In my home town in New Jersey there are miles of woods in which, every half mile or so, you can see a broken down house, once some farmers home, but now sagging and ruined, with trees growing up inside of it, and pushing outward and breaking the walls.>>
Les writes:
Hey, your personal experience may have nothing to do with the national average! :^) Yep, I mentioned in my original post that I'd heard all this reforestation was on the east coast, and ended with "I dunno". I've never been to the east coast. Glad you responded. Is New Jersey a forested paradise? The farms around your home town have gone back to trees. I've not seen farmlands go back to trees; here (greater Puget Sound & SW Washington), since the 60's, the farmlands (and woods) I knew have gone mostly to subdivisions, roads, shopping malls, business parks. I'm not strongly arguing that there are more or less trees in the country. I really don't know, because I haven't personally surveyed standing forests in 1900 and 2001. But if something seems opposed to our personal experience and understanding of the world, on what basis can we decide to accept or reject it as "truth"?
Les