4 ms·
cannot build a residential building within 1km of a tree line Absolutely. I've got somewhere an edition of Tacitus' Germania with commentary that states as a m
by HarryHirsch 6y ago
cannot build a residential building within 1km of a tree line
Absolutely. I've got somewhere an edition of Tacitus' Germania with commentary that states as a matter of fact, no explanation needed that "the forest is not part of the human sphere". Why is this so controversial that it needs to be downvoted?
It is baffling that anyone would want to live on the wrong side of the urban-wilderness interface, especially if wilderness means wildfire risk.
- jimmaswell 6y agoThis suggestion is baffling. The nicest place to have a home is in an enclave of forest.
- skmurphy 6y agoIt's OK to build there as long as you acknowledge that fire is a natural inhabitant of any forest and over a 20-30 year period is likely to come for a visit at least once.
- LeifCarrotson 6y agoMost of Michigan is forested. Less than 1% of Michigan has burned in the last 200 years of settlement: there's a ton more precipitation, plus it's under snow for four months a year, so fallen trees and leaves decompose in a couple years and don't increase the fire risk. My house in a Michigan forest has a very, very different risk profile from a home in a California forest. And California is a big state, I'm sure there are forests that have similarly low risk profiles.
- danans 6y ago> And California is a big state, I'm sure there are forests that have similarly low risk profiles. Well, there used to be. For example the coastal quasi-rainforest in Big Basin near Santa Cruz. But climate change appears to have pushed places like that into the burn zone. Nowadays even Olympic National Park, an area full of temperate rainforest, is experiencing wildfire. it seems like pretty much any forest area of California is at wildfire risk these days.
- 0_____0 6y agoForests burn with regularity, and this is a normal and essential process for them. Stands to reason that if you want to build a house, it either be not in a place that burns, or be constructed in a way that it isn't significantly damaged by fire. People have been shown to be willing to rebuild repeatedly in fire zones, with massive economic and public safety impact. Makes sense to legislate to prevent this.
- bigbubba 6y ago> Forests burn with regularity Some do, some don't. California isn't the whole world. Edit: > Wildfires are among the most common forms of natural disaster in some regions, including Siberia, California, and Australia.[17][18][19] Areas with Mediterranean climates or in the taiga biome are particularly susceptible. California and Australia are outliers. Writing off forests in general just because particular sorts of forests are prone to burning doesn't make sense.
- 0_____0 6y agoSorry, yes, I meant specifically the California forest ecologies that require fire.
- FooHentai 6y agoHmm, tell that to Methuselah.
- scottlamb 6y agoBy choosing to live in a forest, you are creating problems for the society you are part of. Among them are the related risk you cause a fire that affects others, need to protect you from fires, and inability to set controlled fires near you that would protect others. It makes sense to have rules and/or fees to prevent or offset that. It's funny. In a recent discussion I was arguing against someone wanting to increase power costs on rural customers, because I think doing so carelessly would impact the food supply chain. But it doesn't take too much "living in forests is great" foolish selfishness in the middle of a discussion of wildfires to make me wonder if I was on the wrong side of that one.
- egberts1 6y agoEnclave. A nice clearing around your domicile free of fuelable trees and bushes.
- ip26 6y agoWhat makes Tacitus the final authority on the matter?
- HarryHirsch 6y agoThe apparently controversial remark is in the commentary. Tacitus (Germania 1,16) merely says that the Germanic tribesmen, barbarians they are, do not live in towns but each family in their cleared patch of forest. The commentary expands on that, saying that that statement doesn't need much elaboration, humans do not belong in the forest.
- markbnine 6y agoI went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms... HDT I've lived in the forest for the last ten years. Nothing better. Sure there's risks; there's risks everywhere.
- joe_the_user 6y agoI live in a forested area currently. Talking about single person choices is disingenuous. There is an industry around building houses where they shouldn't be. The entire zoning, tax and development system is broken, cities depend on building permits for income because they can't effectively tax existing lots. And basically, no one pays for the real cost of exurban sprawl till the whole thing burns up in a forest fire.
- bigbubba 6y agoFrom what you describe it sounds like Tacitus was dehumanizing the Germanic people for not being as metropolitan as Romans, not talking about fires. Tacitus also wrote of the Great Fire of Rome, so it would be weird for him to argue that fires were an argument for urbanization. His perspective was not ours, in his era cities sometimes turned into infernos. Something only the quite elderly have experienced in our era.