> Will some of these towns burn to the ground from "controlled" burns getting out of control? Yes. But the alternative is that they simply burn some other time

> Will some of these towns burn to the ground from "controlled" burns getting out of control? Yes. But the alternative is that they simply burn some other time down the road when less can be done to stop it. Yes, but American morality has been warped by its legal code into some twisted version of the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics (https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...) that makes this infeasible to actually accomplish. In vastly oversimplified terms, the primary American response to any tragedy is to ask the question of who can be sued about this. The person who can be sued is the person who is to be blamed and the system optimizes for the avoidance of blame, not the minimization of harm. Look at the (lack of) debate around human challenge trials in the US. It's taken as an obvious given that a given entity causing an almost certain X0 amount of deaths is a less preferable outcome than a diffuse and unblamable phenomena causing X000 deaths because in the former case, there's a concrete entity that can be blamed for the obvious infliction of harm but in the latter, it was simply the result of impersonal systems that nothing can be done about.