4 ms·

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results There was humid areas with lakes and lots of animals in

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results There was humid areas with lakes and lots of animals in what is now the Prehistoric Sahara, burnt for pastures until desert There was lots of extinct species in what is now Australia, and it was more humid in the past. Arid, subdesert, desert again. Brazil has a huge stupidity problem, some new deserts ordered and in the way Indonesia idem, Russia has extensive wildfires in 2019, happily running towards the same path We don't even understand well the dynamics and ecology of soil, and all that we can parrot again and again is lets burn more, lets burn more, that will solve it all... we are not burning enough fast. We know that fallen trees are essential for many species of invertebrates and vertebrates, Not allowed anymore it seems. We must clean the area and turn nature into a cartoon. Being an arsonist is not only the perfect crime, it seems that is even the fastest way to became a local hero. We are even justifying and giving reasons to them

schrodinger 6y ago
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results No it’s not.
Thetawaves 6y ago
1) Fire is a necessary part of many forest ecosystems. 2) Forest fires have been controlled and contained for the last ~100 years on the west coast of America. 3) Forests are not being burned at anywhere close to the rate that they would naturally. 4) Fire is not the process by which these places became arid.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  1) As I said before, fire is just a chapter in a bigger history The problem is that we can't survive just with this technique anymore, because we desperately need more forests in a "safety level of rainforest" or close to it, to have any chance to heal the climate. Unless we create a CO2 extracting machine, trees, plants and algae are still our best bet. This rhetoric of "lets manage ecosystems as they did in the roman empire", maybe could work 200 years ago but now we are in a different situation. 4) Places became arid in part because there is not topsoil anymore, so nobody can grow here enough fast, so there is not water storing creatures anymore. This happens often by past fires followed by rains that first mineralize the soil, then turn it into dust and then wash it down the streams in a mud flood. Removing mechanically the dry weeds, would have the same effects but without the counterparts.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    And we should not forget that prescribed fires kill the new sapplings, so the forest can't regenerate from this point and start decaying. We don't see it because they decay very slow, but this does not change the fact that a forest can not grow anymore in this places. Is just a logging reserve.
    - thinkingemote 6y ago
      Trees will pop out a new batch of seeds the next year. trees will plant themselves more trees. The idea for controlled burns is to do them once a decade or so.
    - Thetawaves 6y ago
      This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem.
      - pvaldes 6y ago
        This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem. (...talking about lack of understanding, here comes the tunnel vision) Hem, not. Obviously. Is several levels more complex than that. You forgot at least two really big factors here.
  - Thetawaves 6y ago
    Fires are not a major cause of erosion. I'm not sure why you would think that - fires do not obliterate the organic material that binds soils together. You are conflating human land clearing with forest fires. Any loss of plant life due to a forest fire is quickly replaced as new growth is able to take advantage of new light/water/nutrient resources.
    - 6y ago
- mythrwy 6y ago
  I agree with your point and disagree with parent. Fires are natural and are needed. But I remember reading (somewhere) part of the reason Australia became arid is repeated mass burning by Aboriginal people. Anyone know how true that really is (or is not)?
Lazare 6y ago
You have no idea what you're talking about. The problem here is we've stopped the natural fires, and thus caused damage; what's being discussed is returning to something closer to natural. Misguided, fact-free views like yours cost lives and damage the planet.

schrodinger 6y ago

> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results No it’s not.

Thetawaves 6y ago

1) Fire is a necessary part of many forest ecosystems. 2) Forest fires have been controlled and contained for the last ~100 years on the west coast of America. 3) Forests are not being burned at anywhere close to the rate that they would naturally. 4) Fire is not the process by which these places became arid.

pvaldes 6y ago
1) As I said before, fire is just a chapter in a bigger history The problem is that we can't survive just with this technique anymore, because we desperately need more forests in a "safety level of rainforest" or close to it, to have any chance to heal the climate. Unless we create a CO2 extracting machine, trees, plants and algae are still our best bet. This rhetoric of "lets manage ecosystems as they did in the roman empire", maybe could work 200 years ago but now we are in a different situation. 4) Places became arid in part because there is not topsoil anymore, so nobody can grow here enough fast, so there is not water storing creatures anymore. This happens often by past fires followed by rains that first mineralize the soil, then turn it into dust and then wash it down the streams in a mud flood. Removing mechanically the dry weeds, would have the same effects but without the counterparts.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  And we should not forget that prescribed fires kill the new sapplings, so the forest can't regenerate from this point and start decaying. We don't see it because they decay very slow, but this does not change the fact that a forest can not grow anymore in this places. Is just a logging reserve.
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    Trees will pop out a new batch of seeds the next year. trees will plant themselves more trees. The idea for controlled burns is to do them once a decade or so.
  - Thetawaves 6y ago
    This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      This conveys a lack of understanding of the lifecycle of a forest. When old and dead trees are removed, there are more resources available for new growth. Yes, available light/water/nutrients are the limiting factor on new growth in any forest ecosystem. (...talking about lack of understanding, here comes the tunnel vision) Hem, not. Obviously. Is several levels more complex than that. You forgot at least two really big factors here.
- Thetawaves 6y ago
  Fires are not a major cause of erosion. I'm not sure why you would think that - fires do not obliterate the organic material that binds soils together. You are conflating human land clearing with forest fires. Any loss of plant life due to a forest fire is quickly replaced as new growth is able to take advantage of new light/water/nutrient resources.
  - 6y ago
mythrwy 6y ago
I agree with your point and disagree with parent. Fires are natural and are needed. But I remember reading (somewhere) part of the reason Australia became arid is repeated mass burning by Aboriginal people. Anyone know how true that really is (or is not)?

Lazare 6y ago

You have no idea what you're talking about. The problem here is we've stopped the natural fires, and thus caused damage; what's being discussed is returning to something closer to natural. Misguided, fact-free views like yours cost lives and damage the planet.