darwinsdog
That is an extremely 'dog'matic response. It reveals a misunderstanding of how living communities function. You are confusing a forest ecosystem that is selectively harvested on a 25 year rotation with a garden or farm field that may be harvested annually.

Of course it is easy to assume the worst of your fellow humans, and surely there is plenty of evidence to support that argument, but it is obvious that selective harvesting of forest biomass can be done sustainably. A well-maintained farm woodlot is a good example of sustainable forestry.

I routinely encounter urban folks with no forestry experience who see a forest as a museum in which the removal of a tree exhibit renders the whole diminished, when a forest is actually a living community in constant evolution.

You have failed to consider solar input to forests, which is what accounts for their growth. I live in the middle of 100 acres of bush and I can tell you that its growth is so rapid that it constantly threatens to overwhelm my attempts to maintain a small clear spot to live in.

it is obvious that selective harvesting of forest biomass can be done sustainably

It's not that obvious. First of all, harvesting the forest will destroy habitats and, at least temporarily, alter that local environment (to some effect). Also, removing nutrients and organic matter from the forest means that those have to be replaced. How is that done sustainably? And, if this kind of thing takes off, isn't it likely that even more forest will be harvested to feed our consumer societies, to further detrimental effect?