3 ms·

This is a good point, though I think the human side of things is a clear reason why these wildfires are extinguished. Even in some of the most rural places you

by CM30 10y ago

This is a good point, though I think the human side of things is a clear reason why these wildfires are extinguished. Even in some of the most rural places you can imagine, there will be at least some sign of humanity, like say, someone's house or business premises or some other necessary element (even a hut or cabin in a national park). People tend not to want these things burnt to a crisp. What made sense for those millions of years simply makes less sense now people are likely living or working with said land.

logfromblammo 10y ago
It is a philosophical choice as to whether humans should change nature by eliminating the wildfires or adapt to it by constructing buildings that can survive frequent fires (or be quickly replaced in their wake). Clearly, the trees in the article, not having the power to stop the fires, adapted to live mostly underground. Humans could do the same, building the houses underground. Or coat exteriors with fire-resistant coverings, as the corky-barked trees do. Or build on tall stilts, like redwoods, such that a typical grass fire cannot spread upwards to a burnable canopy. Or build only on permanent firebreaks, such as by making broad concrete pads part of the foundations or putting big paved rings around settlements. Or use movable homes that can get out of the way when a fire comes through and return after it passes. Is it justified for humanity to remove fire from every biome--even those that need it--just because one species finds it to be inconvenient? Maybe. The debate hasn't been settled either way, and I can think of valid arguments supporting both sides. It would seem that for something like earthquakes, we have opted to adopt stricter building standards, rather than attempting to prevent the disaster. But that may only be because it costs less to do it that way. Fireproofed homes sound rather expensive, and it seems likely that hiring even a legion of firefighters to protect most of the burnable ones might be cheaper.

by CM30 10y ago

logfromblammo 10y ago

It is a philosophical choice as to whether humans should change nature by eliminating the wildfires or adapt to it by constructing buildings that can survive frequent fires (or be quickly replaced in their wake). Clearly, the trees in the article, not having the power to stop the fires, adapted to live mostly underground. Humans could do the same, building the houses underground. Or coat exteriors with fire-resistant coverings, as the corky-barked trees do. Or build on tall stilts, like redwoods, such that a typical grass fire cannot spread upwards to a burnable canopy. Or build only on permanent firebreaks, such as by making broad concrete pads part of the foundations or putting big paved rings around settlements. Or use movable homes that can get out of the way when a fire comes through and return after it passes. Is it justified for humanity to remove fire from every biome--even those that need it--just because one species finds it to be inconvenient? Maybe. The debate hasn't been settled either way, and I can think of valid arguments supporting both sides. It would seem that for something like earthquakes, we have opted to adopt stricter building standards, rather than attempting to prevent the disaster. But that may only be because it costs less to do it that way. Fireproofed homes sound rather expensive, and it seems likely that hiring even a legion of firefighters to protect most of the burnable ones might be cheaper.