Nothing is "optimal", it's only ever "optimal for". So asking if nature is optimal is nonsense unless we have a firm agreement on what nature is for (which we certainly don't).
But the linked article doesn't have this problem. The "for" there is quite clearly the recovery of forests after logging, so they can be used again for whatever you may be expected to use a forest for (including more logging)
I think you’re arguing against a point that I am not making. In fact I think you’re making the same argument that I am, which is “nature isn’t seeking an optimal outcome because that is too abstract”.
The person I was replying to was saying “just do what nature does”. But that doesn’t mean much. My point was you can’t just blindly follow “nature” without observation and study because it can just as easily go and do something catastrophic as it can do something good.
But the linked article doesn't have this problem. The "for" there is quite clearly the recovery of forests after logging, so they can be used again for whatever you may be expected to use a forest for (including more logging)