Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 8, 2:15pm
Views: 166772
|
13. Why didn't the hobbits, over hundreds of years, cut down more trees? Why did they leave a large chunk of the Shire as a wild forest? They didn't have such a great relationship with the Old Forest. Why did they have a different relationship with Woody End?
Good question, because I recall reading somewhere that deforestation caused serious environmental harm to high-population areas as far back as 1000 BC, and with the enduring Tragedy of the Commons embedded in human behavior (such as chopping down trees until none are left, but you need the wood, right? and it's up to Nature or someone else to replant the trees, right?), I suspect the Shire still has forests because the population is low enough that trees grow back on their own. But it is possible that the hobbits have an innate sense of stewardship of the land (minus Ted Sandyman and Lotho), so they may protect certain woods and also undertake replanting when needed. At least, replantings wouldn't surprise me as a hobbity thing to do. They are close to the land and seem to sense its needs. I just don't see hobbits deforesting the Shire the way Numenor did Eriador when it wanted lumber for ships and building.
There are really only two, relatively small areas of woodland in the Shire: Bindale Wood in the Northfarthing; and Wooy End which encompasses much of the Green Hill Country. Neither region is insignificant, but they also are not all that large. I just accept that hobbits love trees and left those areas as they were just because they could.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 8, 2:17pm)
|
