2 ms·

Fire is part of the natural world. Trying to eradicate all forest fires tends to harm ecosystems. Some trees can't reproduce without fires opening their pine co

Fire is part of the natural world. Trying to eradicate all forest fires tends to harm ecosystems. Some trees can't reproduce without fires opening their pine cones. I'm really happy to see this research. I am aware that climate change is real, but "the news" tends to focus on bad things. It was predicted that the Kuwait oil well fires would burn for years and be a global environmental catastrophe. When crack teams converged on the area from around the world and put them out in just six months, we did not party in the streets over having averted a global catastrophe. That's part for the course. We routinely wring our hand about how bad we expect it to be, then take it for granted when emergency response exceeds our expectations and move on to whining about the next gloom and doom scenario. I'm fully well aware that the next gloom and doom scenario is likely all too real and not neurotic overactive imagination at work. But it just sucks the oxygen out of the conversation when people act like it's crazy talk if you aren't part of the "We're all gonna die!!" environmental belief cult. Me thinking there is still hope, we can still find solutions, we aren't all doomed is not evidence of insanity, stupidity, cluelessness or denial. I'm an environmental studies major. My father fought in WWII. The entire world was doomed then too and survived. I know we need to somehow get people to take things seriously and actually take action. I just don't think emphasizing how utterly doomed we are is the way to do that. For lots of people, that will make them go "Why bother? We're doomed anyway. Me being all self sacrificing won't fix it. I might as well enjoy myself a little before we all die and this world turns into a smoking husk."

xpe 5y ago
I agree with the spirit of large chunks of this comment. > ... Me being all self sacrificing won't fix it. I might as well enjoy myself a little before we all die and this world turns into a smoking husk." We won't get far enough with individuals making, for example, 1% changes in their consumption patterns. Rather than asking individuals "to do more", a better way forward is to emphasize systemic changes in policy. Policy includes a range of options: investment, taxation, and regulations. To quote a line from one of my favorite Despair posters: "None of us is as dumb as all of us." I mention this because, left to our own devices, each individual (more or less) tends to spend most of their attention, time, motivation, and money to address their most immediate needs. Our systems are quite efficient at converting these needs into resource-extracting economies, without paying attention to externalities (i.e. downstream costs that an extractor doesn't face). Long story short, it turns out a tribal species evolved to deal with scarcity isn't inherently driven to act in ways to ensure our long-term survival. That's a bug. Together, we have done an amazingly efficient job at throwing our planet off balance. This is why we need collective action. If the word 'collective' makes you uncomfortable, feel free to substitute in 'organized', 'coordinated', 'intelligent', or 'wise'. Whatever word you pick, we need the political will (or, in the case of some countries, the autocratic will) to drive changes to our systems.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  It doesn't necessarily have to involve self sacrifice. For example, we could build a world where life is comfortable for most people without a car. I don't know how we actually get there from here. But I'm confident that it isn't effective to make everyone believe that our choices are between 1. short-term personal gratification at the cost of everyone being certainly doomed and 2. short-term personal sacrifice with a very slim hope of marginal collective gain. In that scenario, most people will look out for themselves. Only crazy people sacrifice themselves for no real gain for anyone else. We have to create a plan for short-term personal gain that leads to collective gain long term. Most conversations don't allow for that possibility to exist at all.
tshaddox 5y ago
> Fire is part of the natural world. Trying to eradicate all forest fires tends to harm ecosystems. Some trees can't reproduce without fires opening their pine cones. > I'm really happy to see this research. I am aware that climate change is real, but "the news" tends to focus on bad things. It's not either/or. Death is also part of the natural world, yet the news tends to focus on avoidable things that cause death. People who want to reduce the negative effects of climate change shouldn't be accused of "trying to eradicate all forest fires" any more than doctors should be accused of "trying to eradicate all death."
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Trying to eradicate all forest fires has a known track record of leading to worse forest fires. It's not some accusation. It's established historic fact. For decades, complete suppression was the stated objective of various services in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppress...

xpe 5y ago

I agree with the spirit of large chunks of this comment. > ... Me being all self sacrificing won't fix it. I might as well enjoy myself a little before we all die and this world turns into a smoking husk." We won't get far enough with individuals making, for example, 1% changes in their consumption patterns. Rather than asking individuals "to do more", a better way forward is to emphasize systemic changes in policy. Policy includes a range of options: investment, taxation, and regulations. To quote a line from one of my favorite Despair posters: "None of us is as dumb as all of us." I mention this because, left to our own devices, each individual (more or less) tends to spend most of their attention, time, motivation, and money to address their most immediate needs. Our systems are quite efficient at converting these needs into resource-extracting economies, without paying attention to externalities (i.e. downstream costs that an extractor doesn't face). Long story short, it turns out a tribal species evolved to deal with scarcity isn't inherently driven to act in ways to ensure our long-term survival. That's a bug. Together, we have done an amazingly efficient job at throwing our planet off balance. This is why we need collective action. If the word 'collective' makes you uncomfortable, feel free to substitute in 'organized', 'coordinated', 'intelligent', or 'wise'. Whatever word you pick, we need the political will (or, in the case of some countries, the autocratic will) to drive changes to our systems.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
It doesn't necessarily have to involve self sacrifice. For example, we could build a world where life is comfortable for most people without a car. I don't know how we actually get there from here. But I'm confident that it isn't effective to make everyone believe that our choices are between 1. short-term personal gratification at the cost of everyone being certainly doomed and 2. short-term personal sacrifice with a very slim hope of marginal collective gain. In that scenario, most people will look out for themselves. Only crazy people sacrifice themselves for no real gain for anyone else. We have to create a plan for short-term personal gain that leads to collective gain long term. Most conversations don't allow for that possibility to exist at all.

tshaddox 5y ago

> Fire is part of the natural world. Trying to eradicate all forest fires tends to harm ecosystems. Some trees can't reproduce without fires opening their pine cones. > I'm really happy to see this research. I am aware that climate change is real, but "the news" tends to focus on bad things. It's not either/or. Death is also part of the natural world, yet the news tends to focus on avoidable things that cause death. People who want to reduce the negative effects of climate change shouldn't be accused of "trying to eradicate all forest fires" any more than doctors should be accused of "trying to eradicate all death."

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Trying to eradicate all forest fires has a known track record of leading to worse forest fires. It's not some accusation. It's established historic fact. For decades, complete suppression was the stated objective of various services in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppress...