3 ms·

These forests managed themselves for thousands of years without us - including periods of invasive species (through geological rather than human means of transm

These forests managed themselves for thousands of years without us - including periods of invasive species (through geological rather than human means of transmission). I find it funny us humans seem to want to take responsibility for everything. That said I wouldn't want my house burned down from a forest fire either.

gdubs 6y ago
Well, while it might make a nice children’s book, there were no firefighting animals prior to humans. So, sure, the forests managed to maintain themselves because no one was around to stop the fires, which kept things in check. Animals would flee, but in general these fires would have been more frequent and as a consequence, less vicious. But in the past few thousand years, they were actively managed. Native American Indians burned countless acres annually to maintain a particular ecosystem. Oregon, known now for its Douglas Fir trees, was largely an oak savanna. Oaks are fire resistant and provide food for big game. The annual fires kept other vegetation in check. Humans have an outsized effect on the planet; I fail to see the humor in why we should recognize our impact, and our moral and ethical responsibilities to the web of life we’re both a part of and depend on.
- jdsully 6y ago
  But you said it yourself, if we had not "managed" the forest we would likely have been in a better situation today with less severe fires. Humans have a huge bias to action, and aversion to change which isn't always for the best.
  - gdubs 6y ago
    There’s two different types of “management” being discussed. One being the modern approach of fire suppression. The other, the one taken by native Americans, involved annual burns which did not make the situation worse and in fact kept things in check.
prennert 6y ago
It's the changing conditions that make it tricky and "unnatural" in the short term. Long-term, of course everything will be fine. Life survived a lot radical changes and following mass extinctions. But as far as I can tell, usually the dominant species after the event were not the same as the ones before the events.

gdubs 6y ago

Well, while it might make a nice children’s book, there were no firefighting animals prior to humans. So, sure, the forests managed to maintain themselves because no one was around to stop the fires, which kept things in check. Animals would flee, but in general these fires would have been more frequent and as a consequence, less vicious. But in the past few thousand years, they were actively managed. Native American Indians burned countless acres annually to maintain a particular ecosystem. Oregon, known now for its Douglas Fir trees, was largely an oak savanna. Oaks are fire resistant and provide food for big game. The annual fires kept other vegetation in check. Humans have an outsized effect on the planet; I fail to see the humor in why we should recognize our impact, and our moral and ethical responsibilities to the web of life we’re both a part of and depend on.

jdsully 6y ago
But you said it yourself, if we had not "managed" the forest we would likely have been in a better situation today with less severe fires. Humans have a huge bias to action, and aversion to change which isn't always for the best.
- gdubs 6y ago
  There’s two different types of “management” being discussed. One being the modern approach of fire suppression. The other, the one taken by native Americans, involved annual burns which did not make the situation worse and in fact kept things in check.

prennert 6y ago

It's the changing conditions that make it tricky and "unnatural" in the short term. Long-term, of course everything will be fine. Life survived a lot radical changes and following mass extinctions. But as far as I can tell, usually the dominant species after the event were not the same as the ones before the events.