Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,454
TMI???
Definitely not TMI.

You're right, deforestation occurred for more reasons than simply clearing arable land.
Once somebody could "own" the forest, though, the efforts put into protecting the forest and its harvests still suggests to me that, with a few exceptions, deforestation didn't typically provide a direct production boost. Rather, it was a consequence of population growth and "tragedy of the commons" behaviour. Also, "own" in this case didn't necessarily mean in the capitalist sense. In lots of societies, absent times of emergencies, social norms on who could do what with the forest protected the benefit of resource for the entire community. Organized efforts to cut it down in these circumstances were more often part of a cycle of use and re-growth. "Let's cut it all down" was more often a result of chaos or neglect, not a purposeful strategy by the society to boost their economic welfare, unless the land was needed for agriculture (or the trees were needed for ships).