The point is that the damage is not so simple to reverse. There are consequences to destroying and regrowing that would not be felt if the destruction had not occurred.

▲

themacguffinman an hour ago | parent [-]

And the point the previous commenter was making is that the damage is pretty simple to reverse because trees are fungible, a point that is not countered in any way by an incredible analogy to notoriously non-fungible children.

	▲	thunderfork an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Trees, forests, and the things that live in them are also non-fungible. This was also indicated in my previous comment. Hope this helps!