Depends who/where/when you're talking about. For example, I'd really hesitate to lump the carefully planned controlled "slow burns" that Native Californians and Aboriginal Australians have practiced into the same category as "slash and burn". The former is done in a very planned way in very restricted areas and ends up having the net effect of reducing the number of wildfires while also increasing the productivity of certain species like acorns. There's a large number of other benefits to these techniques like the charcoal produced ending up cleaning the streams and making them more safe to enjoy and drink from for humans

"Slash and burn" as I've heard it is mostly applied to colonial techniques where the goal is actual destruction of forests to turn the land into (temporarily) very productive agricultural plots. This is in contrast to the cultural burns that were usually done in the name of preservation and to the benefit of many native wild plants

But we could just be going by different dictionaries