4 ms·

I'm sorry but isn't this just Darwinism in play here? You get natural selection, and various species that are selected against become extinct. But it's not li

I'm sorry but isn't this just Darwinism in play here? You get natural selection, and various species that are selected against become extinct. But it's not like it's going to turn into some sort of desert, the area, after forest fires, will be replaced by another species that is presumably resistant to the fungus, and life moves on.

arcticfox 11y ago
It's a rhododendron disease from the Netherlands. You're right, that this is Darwinism in play, but it's due to human influence. So human intervention is no more artificial than the original evolutionary pressure. It just depends whether we value preserving diverse ecosystems, or if we're happy to spread species / diseases around the world and just see what survives. I'm not saying there's a fundamentally "right" answer, but I prefer diverse ecosystems to the point I think it's worth trying to intervene when possible.
jokr004 11y ago
I don't think anyone is trying to blame someone for this.. Absolutely this is nature taking its course, but we happen to like oak trees so it might make sense that we would try and protect them.
- pfarnsworth 11y ago
  But it no longer makes sense, since the scientists have already said that it's unstoppable. So dumping more money into trying to protect them seems like a waste of money, no?
  - ArtDev 11y ago
    Giving up is a very poor plan. Dead trees make wildfires much much worse. California wildfires are terrible as it is.
    - pfarnsworth 11y ago
      Forest fires are a natural part of the cycle. In fact, it's forest fire "prevention" that causes even bigger forest fires than normal. If they simply let fires burn, it would naturally cleanse the forests of brush and dead trees and create much smaller forest fires.
      - hinkley 11y ago
        It's more that the specific type of forests that John Muir was so fond of were the result of intensive agroforestry by the tribes of California. They used fire as part of a fairly large toolbox, and you don't get that sort of forest without it.
saintgimp 11y ago
Actually, a lot of California is going to turn into some sort of desert. There are several borderline ecosystems that used to support mature trees but once we lost them to disease or fire no trees of any kind appear to be growing back; just chaparral. Yes, Life (capital L) moves on, but perhaps not the kind of life that we'd prefer. We can just shrug and say, "Oh well" or we can take a moment to reflect on what, if anything, we might do to steer natural selection in directions we find more pleasant.

arcticfox 11y ago

It's a rhododendron disease from the Netherlands. You're right, that this is Darwinism in play, but it's due to human influence. So human intervention is no more artificial than the original evolutionary pressure. It just depends whether we value preserving diverse ecosystems, or if we're happy to spread species / diseases around the world and just see what survives. I'm not saying there's a fundamentally "right" answer, but I prefer diverse ecosystems to the point I think it's worth trying to intervene when possible.

jokr004 11y ago

I don't think anyone is trying to blame someone for this.. Absolutely this is nature taking its course, but we happen to like oak trees so it might make sense that we would try and protect them.

pfarnsworth 11y ago
But it no longer makes sense, since the scientists have already said that it's unstoppable. So dumping more money into trying to protect them seems like a waste of money, no?
- ArtDev 11y ago
  Giving up is a very poor plan. Dead trees make wildfires much much worse. California wildfires are terrible as it is.
  - pfarnsworth 11y ago
    Forest fires are a natural part of the cycle. In fact, it's forest fire "prevention" that causes even bigger forest fires than normal. If they simply let fires burn, it would naturally cleanse the forests of brush and dead trees and create much smaller forest fires.
    - hinkley 11y ago
      It's more that the specific type of forests that John Muir was so fond of were the result of intensive agroforestry by the tribes of California. They used fire as part of a fairly large toolbox, and you don't get that sort of forest without it.

saintgimp 11y ago

Actually, a lot of California is going to turn into some sort of desert. There are several borderline ecosystems that used to support mature trees but once we lost them to disease or fire no trees of any kind appear to be growing back; just chaparral. Yes, Life (capital L) moves on, but perhaps not the kind of life that we'd prefer. We can just shrug and say, "Oh well" or we can take a moment to reflect on what, if anything, we might do to steer natural selection in directions we find more pleasant.