4 ms·

The problem with this is local politics. "Let wildfires burn" sounds great when it's not your multimillion dollar vacation home going up in smoke. Yes, in the l

The problem with this is local politics. "Let wildfires burn" sounds great when it's not your multimillion dollar vacation home going up in smoke. Yes, in the long run it would be better for everyone involved. But we humans are anything but longsighted when it comes to dollars and cents.

knieveltech 9y ago
Remember, you don't hate Mondays, you hate capitalism.
- msla 9y ago
  You don't hate capitalism, you hate badly-regulated capitalism. Besides, homes burn just as much in a socialist society.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Ah, but in a socialist society you then get a new home, because the entire population is in the mandatory risk insurance pool for that, effectively. (Quality of said homes is a different and orthogonal question.)
    - msla 9y ago
      In a socialist society, you'd live where the state puts you, and any back-talk would be regarded as a mental disease (sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia, for one the USSR like to use) and treated as such. Also, I doubt the socialist state would be able to supply a new home before I was ready for a state-supplied grave.
      - int_19h 9y ago
        I grew up in a socialist society - indeed, the very one that you mention. You're right that you wouldn't get your pick of where to live in most cases. But you're wrong that they wouldn't supply you with some living space right away, if the one you were living on is gone. It would be a shitty living space more likely than not (e.g. a communal apartment), but you'd have a roof over your head for sure.
  - knieveltech 9y ago
    No, I'm pretty sure that I hate capitalism. We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism, that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority, and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.
    - msla 9y ago
      > We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism Funny, that's what socialism ends up producing, with the nomenklatura in charge. > that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority Again, this is what socialism results in. > and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources. This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources.
      - knieveltech 9y ago
        > This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources. Yeah, it really isn't. At best you can produce a handful of outliers that support this point. Meanwhile there's the rest of the economy. I'm guessing you won't enjoy a review of the growth of shipping and logistics internationally if you're trying to sell someone on this bit of mythology. Also, piss on your whataboutism, it fails to address any criticisms of the system you're attempting to defend. There are several working examples of socialism in practice around the world right now that are not resulting in soviet-era Yugoslavia. Additionally your implication that alternative economic models can only result in historical failures disregards humanity's ability to innovate. Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on your part?
        msla 9y ago
        You have no idea what you're talking about, and are ignoring most of the 20th Century.
        9y ago
ghaff 9y ago
Or even your not so multi-million house that is nonetheless in forest or even somewhat sparsely forested areas that get wildfires--which out West can mean a pretty large swath of land that just isn't urban or built-up suburban.
mschuster91 9y ago
> "Let wildfires burn" sounds great when it's not your multimillion dollar vacation home going up in smoke. The solution for this would be creating "clearance" area around said homes (or surrounding a town). 200m forest-free zone, additionally supported by a sprinkler system fed e.g. from a swimming pool or a huge buried water tank (fed by rainwater). In addition, separate forest areas by cleared lines so that a fire cannot grow so huge that it cannot be contained in real emergency cases, and also that wildlife, trapped wanderers etc. can flee to safety. The only thing this does not account for is cellphone / other RF antenna towers and power transmission lines.
notatoad 9y ago
I don't think "let wildfires burn" is an accepted strategy anywhere that those fires could be threatening homes. It's a policy for wilderness fires, where it threatens a community it's not better in the long run for everyone involved. It would be disastrous to let a fire rip through a town just to reduce the fire hazard. It's entirely possible to do proactive controlled burns and fuel reduction near towns, and let the fires burn when they aren't threatening a town. Letting fires burn and controlling, directing, and managing the fire are not mutually exclusive.
- VintageCool 9y ago
  Sure, but people are building really nice homes deeper and deeper into the woods. The area that we would consider safe to 'let burn' keeps shrinking as people move in to those areas.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  I think the biggest problem with a "let wildfires burn" strategy is that most forests in the continental United States are too small (or too populated) to make it feasible. Any "large" fire will always be near a town or homes.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    A fair number of current active large fires aren't expected to be contained for weeks: https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/ https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/ (clicking the markers brings up an info window with expected containment dates)

knieveltech 9y ago

Remember, you don't hate Mondays, you hate capitalism.

msla 9y ago
You don't hate capitalism, you hate badly-regulated capitalism. Besides, homes burn just as much in a socialist society.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Ah, but in a socialist society you then get a new home, because the entire population is in the mandatory risk insurance pool for that, effectively. (Quality of said homes is a different and orthogonal question.)
  - msla 9y ago
    In a socialist society, you'd live where the state puts you, and any back-talk would be regarded as a mental disease (sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia, for one the USSR like to use) and treated as such. Also, I doubt the socialist state would be able to supply a new home before I was ready for a state-supplied grave.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      I grew up in a socialist society - indeed, the very one that you mention. You're right that you wouldn't get your pick of where to live in most cases. But you're wrong that they wouldn't supply you with some living space right away, if the one you were living on is gone. It would be a shitty living space more likely than not (e.g. a communal apartment), but you'd have a roof over your head for sure.
- knieveltech 9y ago
  No, I'm pretty sure that I hate capitalism. We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism, that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority, and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.
  - msla 9y ago
    > We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism Funny, that's what socialism ends up producing, with the nomenklatura in charge. > that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority Again, this is what socialism results in. > and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources. This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources.
    - knieveltech 9y ago
      > This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources. Yeah, it really isn't. At best you can produce a handful of outliers that support this point. Meanwhile there's the rest of the economy. I'm guessing you won't enjoy a review of the growth of shipping and logistics internationally if you're trying to sell someone on this bit of mythology. Also, piss on your whataboutism, it fails to address any criticisms of the system you're attempting to defend. There are several working examples of socialism in practice around the world right now that are not resulting in soviet-era Yugoslavia. Additionally your implication that alternative economic models can only result in historical failures disregards humanity's ability to innovate. Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on your part?
      - msla 9y ago
        You have no idea what you're talking about, and are ignoring most of the 20th Century.
        9y ago

ghaff 9y ago

Or even your not so multi-million house that is nonetheless in forest or even somewhat sparsely forested areas that get wildfires--which out West can mean a pretty large swath of land that just isn't urban or built-up suburban.

mschuster91 9y ago

> "Let wildfires burn" sounds great when it's not your multimillion dollar vacation home going up in smoke. The solution for this would be creating "clearance" area around said homes (or surrounding a town). 200m forest-free zone, additionally supported by a sprinkler system fed e.g. from a swimming pool or a huge buried water tank (fed by rainwater). In addition, separate forest areas by cleared lines so that a fire cannot grow so huge that it cannot be contained in real emergency cases, and also that wildlife, trapped wanderers etc. can flee to safety. The only thing this does not account for is cellphone / other RF antenna towers and power transmission lines.

notatoad 9y ago

I don't think "let wildfires burn" is an accepted strategy anywhere that those fires could be threatening homes. It's a policy for wilderness fires, where it threatens a community it's not better in the long run for everyone involved. It would be disastrous to let a fire rip through a town just to reduce the fire hazard. It's entirely possible to do proactive controlled burns and fuel reduction near towns, and let the fires burn when they aren't threatening a town. Letting fires burn and controlling, directing, and managing the fire are not mutually exclusive.

VintageCool 9y ago
Sure, but people are building really nice homes deeper and deeper into the woods. The area that we would consider safe to 'let burn' keeps shrinking as people move in to those areas.
jlarocco 9y ago
I think the biggest problem with a "let wildfires burn" strategy is that most forests in the continental United States are too small (or too populated) to make it feasible. Any "large" fire will always be near a town or homes.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  A fair number of current active large fires aren't expected to be contained for weeks: https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/ https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/ (clicking the markers brings up an info window with expected containment dates)