4 ms·

Fires are a part of nature. It's a hubris of people to think that forests are static. Most forests need to burn periodically, if not for the trees, then for al

Fires are a part of nature. It's a hubris of people to think that forests are static. Most forests need to burn periodically, if not for the trees, then for all the plants that take over until the forest reestablishes itself. Towns and settlements need to have a solid firebreak. Then start controlled burns from the town. Done right, there should be basically zero risk.

anonporridge 3y ago
> Fires are a part of nature. It's a hubris of people to think that forests are static. Going off on a little bit of a philosophical tangent here, but I think a problem a lot of people have is the deeper implications of what accepting this idea might lead us to conclude about other parts of life. If periodic death and destruction are critical part of maintaining a healthy ecosystem in forests, then it stands to reason that the same might be true for humans. What if attempts to extend our lives, keep people with debilitating illness alive, or reduce warfare and violence are ultimately analogous to controlling and stopping all fire in a forest that needs it to stay healthy and fertile. And as a result, society accumulates more and more kindling over the decades, setting the stage for a devastating wildfire at some unknown point in the future that's orders of magnitude more destructive than it needed to be.
- cultureswitch 3y ago
  There's some historical evidence to suggest that this is true for capital accumulation. Since the first agricultural settlements and civilisations, loans and debt became a feature of human life. This caused cycles of concentration of capital followed by a breaking point and revolt against creditors or some other way to redistribute (in some ancient fertile crescent civilizations, every king would wipe away all debt by decree when accessing the throne). More recently, peaceful times have also consistently lead to very unequal growth. And it's only great crises such as world wars which ultimately resulted in social stabilization and marked improvements in the conditions of the common person.
  - anonporridge 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)
- bad_user 3y ago
  What you're talking about is civilization, and it's great, being why we're here, living in comfort, with our belies full, having a conversation on armchair philosophy. We're not plants dude.
- emmelaich 3y ago
  That's one of my fun speculations for the drop in sperm fertility. There's less violence in the world; men spend far less of their time practicing and preparing for war. So, as well as the concomitant lack of physical exercise (which almost certainly plays a part) there is something in our biological makeup which says since there is less danger, there is less need to procreate.
coryrc 3y ago
In Western forests, I don't believe it's known if they're "a part of nature". What is known is the pre-Columbian population regularly shaped forests using fire and so forests adapted over thousands of years to this, making it required now.
- oconnore 3y ago
  Fires are started regularly by lightning strikes, and would burn if not for human activity to suppress them.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    False. If this would be true, then why we still have an Amazonas forest?. The empirically observed facts show that each time a lightning happens in the rainforest, its effects are short and limited. Is quickly extinguished by the humidity in soil, the rivers or by the daily five-o-clock rain.
    - dendrite9 3y ago
      Because not all forests are the Amazon, what about PJ forests with minimal humidity? Or the scrub oak chaparral of the California foothills? Eucalyptus and sequoia are both fire adapted trees.
  - coryrc 3y ago
    Before humans in NA it was a lot wetter (not because of humans obv). Fire wouldn't spread as much, just like it doesn't as much in the PNW.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Of course they are, lightning wasn’t a recent invention
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    It might be in the Bay Area and north bay. Heard thunder, but lighting was not a really a thing until 2020 from what the natives say.
pvaldes 3y ago
> Most forests need to burn periodically This is a myth. Mature forests rarely burn and mature forests (rainforest+taiga) include the majority of the current forests We can accept it or keep doing it wrong, and craving for a miracle in the change climate problem. It will never happen if we keep burning the soil. When forests burn too frequently what we have is the current situation with half of the megafauna extinct. Just because in the last 200 years we had some status quo does not mean that we shouldn't try to think better or that nature is not trying to return to the original state
- cultureswitch 3y ago
  This is wrong. Yes, Rainforests don't burn as often, by virtue of being extremely hard to burn. Forests in semi-desertic and temperate/dry climates naturally burn frequently.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    > Forests in semi-desertic and temperate/dry climates naturally burn frequently. Yep, and they are very important for biodiversity, but those aren't: 1) Most of the forests in the planet (If I'm not wrong, mature forests occupy more area still, 11% of the emerged areas is taiga). 2) neither mature forests (in the sense of "close to ecosystem climax"). They are either transitional (If let alone, they evolve to the next step that is a higher state of complexity) or trapped in a fire loop. 3) Fire loop that is not natural. We can't claim that something is naturally burn when in a 90% of the cases the culprit is the man. Therefore claiming that "most of the forests need to be burnt regularly as good management practices" is not correct.
- csb6 3y ago
  Periodic wildfires are part of the lifecycle of many kinds of forests. Not every forest is a rainforest - most in North America are not, so they have different behaviors. Also, you are simply wrong that taiga rarely burns [0] - it burns quite often, and it is a normal part of the ecosystem. There is a whole field of study called fire ecology that investigates this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga#Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga#Fire

anonporridge 3y ago

> Fires are a part of nature. It's a hubris of people to think that forests are static. Going off on a little bit of a philosophical tangent here, but I think a problem a lot of people have is the deeper implications of what accepting this idea might lead us to conclude about other parts of life. If periodic death and destruction are critical part of maintaining a healthy ecosystem in forests, then it stands to reason that the same might be true for humans. What if attempts to extend our lives, keep people with debilitating illness alive, or reduce warfare and violence are ultimately analogous to controlling and stopping all fire in a forest that needs it to stay healthy and fertile. And as a result, society accumulates more and more kindling over the decades, setting the stage for a devastating wildfire at some unknown point in the future that's orders of magnitude more destructive than it needed to be.

cultureswitch 3y ago
There's some historical evidence to suggest that this is true for capital accumulation. Since the first agricultural settlements and civilisations, loans and debt became a feature of human life. This caused cycles of concentration of capital followed by a breaking point and revolt against creditors or some other way to redistribute (in some ancient fertile crescent civilizations, every king would wipe away all debt by decree when accessing the throne). More recently, peaceful times have also consistently lead to very unequal growth. And it's only great crises such as world wars which ultimately resulted in social stabilization and marked improvements in the conditions of the common person.
- anonporridge 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)
bad_user 3y ago
What you're talking about is civilization, and it's great, being why we're here, living in comfort, with our belies full, having a conversation on armchair philosophy. We're not plants dude.
emmelaich 3y ago
That's one of my fun speculations for the drop in sperm fertility. There's less violence in the world; men spend far less of their time practicing and preparing for war. So, as well as the concomitant lack of physical exercise (which almost certainly plays a part) there is something in our biological makeup which says since there is less danger, there is less need to procreate.

coryrc 3y ago

In Western forests, I don't believe it's known if they're "a part of nature". What is known is the pre-Columbian population regularly shaped forests using fire and so forests adapted over thousands of years to this, making it required now.

oconnore 3y ago
Fires are started regularly by lightning strikes, and would burn if not for human activity to suppress them.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  False. If this would be true, then why we still have an Amazonas forest?. The empirically observed facts show that each time a lightning happens in the rainforest, its effects are short and limited. Is quickly extinguished by the humidity in soil, the rivers or by the daily five-o-clock rain.
  - dendrite9 3y ago
    Because not all forests are the Amazon, what about PJ forests with minimal humidity? Or the scrub oak chaparral of the California foothills? Eucalyptus and sequoia are both fire adapted trees.
- coryrc 3y ago
  Before humans in NA it was a lot wetter (not because of humans obv). Fire wouldn't spread as much, just like it doesn't as much in the PNW.
kortilla 3y ago
Of course they are, lightning wasn’t a recent invention
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  It might be in the Bay Area and north bay. Heard thunder, but lighting was not a really a thing until 2020 from what the natives say.

pvaldes 3y ago

> Most forests need to burn periodically This is a myth. Mature forests rarely burn and mature forests (rainforest+taiga) include the majority of the current forests We can accept it or keep doing it wrong, and craving for a miracle in the change climate problem. It will never happen if we keep burning the soil. When forests burn too frequently what we have is the current situation with half of the megafauna extinct. Just because in the last 200 years we had some status quo does not mean that we shouldn't try to think better or that nature is not trying to return to the original state

cultureswitch 3y ago
This is wrong. Yes, Rainforests don't burn as often, by virtue of being extremely hard to burn. Forests in semi-desertic and temperate/dry climates naturally burn frequently.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  > Forests in semi-desertic and temperate/dry climates naturally burn frequently. Yep, and they are very important for biodiversity, but those aren't: 1) Most of the forests in the planet (If I'm not wrong, mature forests occupy more area still, 11% of the emerged areas is taiga). 2) neither mature forests (in the sense of "close to ecosystem climax"). They are either transitional (If let alone, they evolve to the next step that is a higher state of complexity) or trapped in a fire loop. 3) Fire loop that is not natural. We can't claim that something is naturally burn when in a 90% of the cases the culprit is the man. Therefore claiming that "most of the forests need to be burnt regularly as good management practices" is not correct.
csb6 3y ago
Periodic wildfires are part of the lifecycle of many kinds of forests. Not every forest is a rainforest - most in North America are not, so they have different behaviors. Also, you are simply wrong that taiga rarely burns [0] - it burns quite often, and it is a normal part of the ecosystem. There is a whole field of study called fire ecology that investigates this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga#Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga#Fire