>>2444048>good for nature!Nature just is. It doesn't good. It doesn't bad. It doesn't care, because it just is. Do something to it, and it changes, and it just is that new way now.
Humans make up "good" and "bad" based on arbitrary aesthetics.
What is your objective standard for "good" here?
A highly developed ecosystem?
Those usually have some of the worst net production and lowest animal life of any.
Succession brings biodiversity, high productivity, and animal life to an area. It's necessary anyway, and happens constantly in "pristine" nature (which hasn't existed for 10,000 years).
Succession is created by disturbance, like burnings.
Old growth actually sucks pretty bad for anything other than building materials.
What's most important then: animal life, diversity of species, primary production, aboveground carbon sequestration, arbitrary aesthetics, building material acquisition... ?