The Forest Floor Is The Product

On the west coast of Vancouver Island there is a Sitka spruce called the Carmanah Giant. It is around 96 metres tall and several centuries old.1 Stand at its base and you think you are looking at a tree. You are not. You are looking at the visible tip of a system that has been quietly assembling itself for far longer than any single tree has been standing in it.

Maybe ten percent of it is above the soil line.

The other ninety percent sits below. A network of fungal threads, the mycorrhizal network, connecting the old trees through filaments thinner than a human hair.2 A soil profile built one millimetre per century from fallen needles, fungal bodies, and the slow decomposition of every tree that came before. A bank of seeds dormant in the soil, waiting decades for the next storm to open a hole in the canopy above.

None of that arrived at once. It was laid down in order, one layer at a time. Pioneer species fixed nitrogen in soil that would not otherwise hold a tree. Shade-tolerant species established in their cover. Each generation made the next one possible.

The spruce did not grow out of the soil. The spruce and the soil grew each other. Slowly. Over a timescale that makes almost everything we ship in 2026 look like weather.

I have thought about that tree a lot this year.

Right now the dominant advice is simple: ship faster, the next model release will save you, and anyone not on the treadmill will get left behind. There is some truth in that, the way there is some truth in every panic. But forests give you the case that breaks the rule. Every old-growth ecosystem on the planet exists because no one optimised it for velocity. The annual growth rate of a 400-year-old tree is laughable. What makes it last is not the rate at which it grows. It is the rate at which it does not get displaced.

That distinction is going to decide who is still standing in five years.

---

Velocity Was Always a Trick of the Light

Most strategy advice in 2026 says some version of the same thing: ship faster, automate the boring parts, parallelise the rest, let velocity carry you. It sounds right because it measures the part that is easy to count. Output per week. Posts per month. Features per quarter.

The forest gives you the other half no one is measuring.

A 400-year-old Sitka spruce adds maybe a centimetre of girth in a good year. By the standards of any ecosystem that prizes growth-rate, this is humiliating. Bamboo can put on close to a metre in a day. Pioneer fireweed colonises a burn site in a single season. By any velocity metric, the spruce loses to almost everything.

And yet bamboo groves get cleared for pasture. Fireweed dies back when the canopy closes. The spruce is still standing.

Forests do not optimise for speed. They optimise for the conditions under which a 400-year-old tree can stand.

This is the distinction velocity strategies miss. Growth-rate is one variable. Displacement-rate is the other. A piece of work shipped in January 2024 that is still doing useful work in January 2027 has beaten a piece shipped weekly that was obsolete by Friday. The slow tree wins not by growing faster but by occupying a position the fast strategies cannot reach.

You can check this in your own work in five minutes. Pick the three things you shipped this month. Then pick the three you shipped this quarter last year. Ask which set is still doing work for you. The honest answer tends to be uncomfortable. The recent stuff is louder. The older stuff is quieter and doing more.

The harder admission is that the slow part may be the load-bearing part. If you automate the patience out of the process, or rush past the bit that needs time to set, you may also remove the thing that was making the work durable. Soil built up over a century cannot be shortcut with fertiliser. The shortcut gives you a different kind of forest, and that forest gets cleared.

Two clocks are running, not one. The first measures how much you can produce. The second measures how long what you produce keeps doing useful work after you ship it. The first clock speeds up every time a new model ships. The second one barely notices model releases. It only moves when something you made was rooted in enough of you that the next release cannot just regenerate it. Sprint on the first clock and ignore the second, and you can look extraordinarily productive for a year. Then look back and find that almost nothing you shipped is still doing work for you.

The move is simple. Stop measuring your work by how often you ship. Start measuring it by how long what you shipped keeps earning its place a month, a quarter, a year later. The first metric flatters output. The second tells you whether you are building anything.

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

---

The Mycorrhizal Network Is the Product

Walk into an old-growth forest and ask a forester what the product of the system is. They will not point at the trees.

The trees are the canopy. The product is the soil and the fungal network running through it.

Suzanne Simard’s 1997 paper in Nature showed something that biologists had suspected for decades and finally proved.3 Birch and Douglas fir trees, growing side by side in British Columbia, were exchanging carbon and water through underground fungal connections. Not competing. Trading. The mycorrhizal network linking their roots was acting as one organism, redistributing resources between trees that, viewed from above, looked like separate individuals.

This is the wood-wide web. Most land plants on Earth depend on these fungal partnerships, and mature forests function less as collections of individual trees and more as networked systems with a hidden circulatory layer underneath.4 Christine Webb, in her essay We Have Never Been Individuals , pushes the point further. Once you take the substrate seriously, the category of "individual organism" starts to wobble. The forest is not a population of trees. It is one thing, and the trees are how it shows up at the surface.

The model is the canopy. The substrate is the forest.

Now look at your own work the same way.

The visible output of anyone using AI in their work, the slide, the post, the codebase, the report, looks like the product. It is not. It is the canopy. The product is the substrate underneath it. The judgement that decided what the slide was even for. The taste that picked the example. The relationship with the person it is being sent to. The accumulated context that made the right move obvious in a situation where a stranger would have needed an hour.

Most 2026 advice on AI productivity is canopy advice. Better prompts. Faster generation. More tools. The canopy improves. The substrate gets ignored or, worse, eroded, because the canopy is producing so much output that no one makes time to tend the soil.

This is the failure mode that fire-suppressed forests show. The visible canopy looks healthy. The understory is choked. New growth has nowhere to start. When disturbance finally comes, the whole system collapses at once because nothing was ever built underneath.

The companies and individuals still standing in 2030 will be the ones who figured this out early. The output is the canopy, and the canopy gets replaced. Every six months a new model ships and the slide deck, the post, the codebase get easier for anyone to reproduce. The substrate underneath is what does not get replaced. It is too specific to you, to your domain, to the people who trust you, to the years of context you brought to bear. The next release does not touch any of it. That is the only part actually worth building.