4 ms·
1. No evidence to suggest we are not putting in adequate efforts into controlled burning. Perhaps you have some? 2. Even if we were putting satisfactory efforts
by saas_sam 8y ago
1. No evidence to suggest we are not putting in adequate efforts into controlled burning. Perhaps you have some?
2. Even if we were putting satisfactory efforts into controlled burning, we would still need to know where sparks are likely to occur to, you know, clear or burn the vegetation around said sparks.
3. Sparks also matter when they are coming from unexpected places, or places that are owned by individuals charged with preventing said sparks.
- IAmGraydon 8y agoA fire that burned 240 square miles and killed 88 isn’t sufficient evidence for you?
- saas_sam 8y agoSo you think any time something bad happens that's evidence that not enough things were done to prevent those types of bad things? Presumably the only things we are well-prepared for in society are things that never, ever occur? Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- thaumasiotes 8y agoI've been reading an amateur anthropologist's blog, and an eternal theme is that primitive people get trapped in a cycle of violent retaliation with every other group nearby. It's very common for the mechanism to be a lack of belief in chance. If Joe was bitten by a snake, that's not because he stepped near a snake. It's because someone cursed him, attracting the snake. If he died from the bite, then a neighboring tribe / village needs to be raided to teach them a lesson. Attributing all misfortune to malicious intent is a universal urge.
- IAmGraydon 8y agoI’m not sure what you’re commenting on, but my post certainly didn’t attribute it to malicious intent. Quite the opposite, actually.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoThe idea that a bad thing happening is evidence that somebody did something wrong is enough to call it "attribution to malicious intent" for my purposes here. A bad thing happening is not in fact evidence that anybody did anything wrong.
- pixl97 8y agoThat would depend if you got bit by that snake in a snake pit. If so, Joe's extreme lack of caution in a dangerous area points to his misfortune. Fire hazards are not much different. These places will burn. That is the natural state of the habitat. The fire has no intent, just the necessity of chemistry.
- dahdum 8y agoThe evidence is pretty open, hardly anyone arguing against controlled burns. Here is some: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/03/lack-of-controlled-burns-contributing-to-california-wildfires/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/03/lack-of-control... > Calfire currently has a goal of burning 20,000 acres a year, a goal put into place in 2016. Last year.. Calfire came close with 19,000 acres control-burned. But two years ago, only 13,000 acres were burned while the previous three years each saw only around 3,000 acres burned.
- drhousejr 8y agologging policies are making things worse https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Logging-California-s-dead-trees-is-harmful-to-9698896.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Loggin...
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoWhen it comes to the environment in CA I don't know what to believe anymore. Like I fully expect CA to be anti-resource extraction, even if it's good for them, but I also don't trust the corporate interests that want to extract those resources.