Hasn't been thought so for many decades

One of The Volokh Conspirators has discovered the physical world:

Natural Rainforest or "Pristine Myth"? For decades it was simply assumed that forest lands in the Americas --- old growth in the North and rainforests in the South --- were "pristine" and largely devoid of human influence prior to European settlement. This "pristine myth" still dominates popular conceptions --- but it is no longer the accepted wisdom among archaeologists. To the contrary, there is increasing evidence that the pre-Colombian forests of the Americas were subject to extensive human alteration and influence.

True enough and Mans Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (published in mid 1950s after ground-breaking no pun intended conference of same name) has also been accepted for decades. It's good to see lawyers (and I am one) discovering environment and the role of humans in the evolution of landscape.

My cautious reaction is "So?"

The Volokh Conspirator says further:

This research has significant implications for ecological thought – if not environmental policy on the ground...

The “pristine myth” of pre-Colombian America is imploding. European settlers did not discover a “natural” America, but one cultivated by Native Americans, who altered and managed the American landscape for several hundred years. The American landscape of 1492 was no more “natural” than those of the last three hundred years. The idea of an untouched American wilderness is ecological fantasy, not historical fact.

Yes? So? Go on. What are the implications?

Certainly we should remember that we are animals and "natural" and our use of the landscape is part of "nature." My caution is what does that means when it does come to public policy? The benchmark of "natural" --- as in pre-Columbian --- may not work when we acknowledge that Native Americans did as much as they were able to change the environment (such as with the use of fire) to make their own lives easier.

But is environmenal despoilation now permitted because the benchmark of "natural" is shown to be illusory? There is just enough triumph --- "See!" --- in the post cited above to make me wonder about the motive for that tone of glee and to wonder where the other shoe will drop.

UPDATE: Crumb Trail takes note and I comment back at his site.