6 ms·

I would be interested to hear from a scientist on a couple questions I've had around this thinking: I've read that because of this built up material AND dead t

I would be interested to hear from a scientist on a couple questions I've had around this thinking: I've read that because of this built up material AND dead trees from beetle kill, no water or snow, etc that the fires burn too hot and kill the regenerative seeds. Is this true? If so how does that factor into the balance of that decision? And do they take into account the carbon and pollution emitted that's a HUGE net negative? Maybe we can't ever stop them from happening in the first place perhaps it's more flatten the curve Plus landslides and instability. I think I've also read burn scars don't absorb and retain as much water - but I'm not as confident in that memory?

CrazyStat 5y ago
> Maybe we can't ever stop them from happening in the first place perhaps it's more flatten the curve We've been trying to "flatten the curve" for the past century. Turns out that was a bad idea. The only way too get back to a healthy ecosystem at this point is to allow a hundred years of excess built up fuel to burn. California had artificially pleasant (i.e mostly wildfire-free) summers for many years. The next few decades will be paying the price for that.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  Isn't this a very norm biased idea. I think geo engineering gets too much of a bad rap. It's powerful and thus massive mistakes have and will be made, but we're only going to get better at it. Why resign ourselves. Would logging at sufficient amounts help, could we better smooth the release of water and fix this? I sort of hate the modern environmentalisms insistence that we should just throw up our hands and anything else is inherently bad.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Just log out the whole forest you say? Removing the forest has the same problem as doing nothing about the fires. People want to have houses in the forest
  - marssaxman 5y ago
    "Our previous attempts at environmental engineering have created bigger problems than we started with, due to unforeseen complexities in the system... what should we do?" "I know! Let's grab this tiger's tail even harder"
    - space_fountain 5y ago
      Have they all failed though? We feed billons of people based mostly on massive changes we've made to the growable parts of the world. We've drained most of the Netherlands and they seem pretty happy. England is treeless because of our work and they seem pretty ok. Idk it's more like we got burned and now have decided to never try cooking again. I think it's quite easy to convince me we should try to structure life in a way that minimizes the interventions we need to do and that any particular thing we could do is bad, but just saying it ins't natural or that we've been wrong before won't cut it for me, not when we need to make big changes not when doing nothing doesn't actually mean the world stays the same.
      - marssaxman 5y ago
        Humanity is not just eating our seed corn, we're burning it for heat. If you think we can get away with that indefinitely, you are far more optimistic than I will ever be.
        space_fountain 5y ago
        Well it seems like we're going to need some more corn then right? The idea that we can and should go back to the natural carrying capacity of earth would if implemented result in billions dying and we don't make a bigger pie without flexing our muscles a bit
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Yeah I can buy this. But I could also see the maths working out that even if we say only slow by 30% that's enough to give us another __ idk say 5 years to get fully renewable. Thinking along those lines. I have NO idea if that is even possible true on the whole and just fake numbers I obviously don't know, hence asking.

CrazyStat 5y ago

> Maybe we can't ever stop them from happening in the first place perhaps it's more flatten the curve We've been trying to "flatten the curve" for the past century. Turns out that was a bad idea. The only way too get back to a healthy ecosystem at this point is to allow a hundred years of excess built up fuel to burn. California had artificially pleasant (i.e mostly wildfire-free) summers for many years. The next few decades will be paying the price for that.

space_fountain 5y ago
Isn't this a very norm biased idea. I think geo engineering gets too much of a bad rap. It's powerful and thus massive mistakes have and will be made, but we're only going to get better at it. Why resign ourselves. Would logging at sufficient amounts help, could we better smooth the release of water and fix this? I sort of hate the modern environmentalisms insistence that we should just throw up our hands and anything else is inherently bad.
- 8note 5y ago
  Just log out the whole forest you say? Removing the forest has the same problem as doing nothing about the fires. People want to have houses in the forest
- marssaxman 5y ago
  "Our previous attempts at environmental engineering have created bigger problems than we started with, due to unforeseen complexities in the system... what should we do?" "I know! Let's grab this tiger's tail even harder"
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    Have they all failed though? We feed billons of people based mostly on massive changes we've made to the growable parts of the world. We've drained most of the Netherlands and they seem pretty happy. England is treeless because of our work and they seem pretty ok. Idk it's more like we got burned and now have decided to never try cooking again. I think it's quite easy to convince me we should try to structure life in a way that minimizes the interventions we need to do and that any particular thing we could do is bad, but just saying it ins't natural or that we've been wrong before won't cut it for me, not when we need to make big changes not when doing nothing doesn't actually mean the world stays the same.
    - marssaxman 5y ago
      Humanity is not just eating our seed corn, we're burning it for heat. If you think we can get away with that indefinitely, you are far more optimistic than I will ever be.
      - space_fountain 5y ago
        Well it seems like we're going to need some more corn then right? The idea that we can and should go back to the natural carrying capacity of earth would if implemented result in billions dying and we don't make a bigger pie without flexing our muscles a bit
dillondoyle 5y ago
Yeah I can buy this. But I could also see the maths working out that even if we say only slow by 30% that's enough to give us another __ idk say 5 years to get fully renewable. Thinking along those lines. I have NO idea if that is even possible true on the whole and just fake numbers I obviously don't know, hence asking.