2 ms·

You might have missed the point that wood is not the only way to get 'warmth' e.g., you could use gas that is less harmful. It discards most of your comment. T

by d0mine 13y ago

You might have missed the point that wood is not the only way to get 'warmth' e.g., you could use gas that is less harmful. It discards most of your comment. Though your last paragraph suggests that you might have some difficulty accepting that if you are not considering it a trivial investment. (I've tried to make the comment to sound less snarky without sacrificing accuracy). Personal data point: Maybe I'm too gullible but I love to find out something new that changes my mind (not too often), especially non-trivial stuff e.g., about weight/fitness as it relates to health. Not all people resist change all of the time.

vacri 13y ago
I didn't miss the 'use gas instead' argument - and it doesn't discard most of my comment at all. Read the comment again - I'm talking about the times when wood is not used 'recreationally'. This is usually in rural areas in developed countries, where wood is very cheap, if not free, or in some developing countries where it's often the only fuel source available en masse. The article is framing 'a wood fire' as something that is merely to provide some sort of cosy sense of solace, which is really a very selective way to look at it. Not to mention that saying "just use gas instead" isn't so trivial - if you're not hooked up to a gas pipe, then managing the gas supply has its own transport issues, extra costs and so forth. For a lot of subsistence farmers with access to both, free wood is likely to be favourable over gas bottles. Gas has wonderful convenience, but if you don't have the money? Frequently the answer is gas for cooking and wood for heating. Similarly, he begs the question a bit when he says that wood fires are natural. They're not natural the way humans use them, not even remotely. That whole argument over the 'naturalness' of fires is a total sideshow, simply because they're not natural - they are traditional. I get that it's supposed to be an illustrative analogy, which is why I say I think it's okay, but not as clever as the author seems to think.

by d0mine 13y ago

vacri 13y ago

I didn't miss the 'use gas instead' argument - and it doesn't discard most of my comment at all. Read the comment again - I'm talking about the times when wood is not used 'recreationally'. This is usually in rural areas in developed countries, where wood is very cheap, if not free, or in some developing countries where it's often the only fuel source available en masse. The article is framing 'a wood fire' as something that is merely to provide some sort of cosy sense of solace, which is really a very selective way to look at it. Not to mention that saying "just use gas instead" isn't so trivial - if you're not hooked up to a gas pipe, then managing the gas supply has its own transport issues, extra costs and so forth. For a lot of subsistence farmers with access to both, free wood is likely to be favourable over gas bottles. Gas has wonderful convenience, but if you don't have the money? Frequently the answer is gas for cooking and wood for heating. Similarly, he begs the question a bit when he says that wood fires are natural. They're not natural the way humans use them, not even remotely. That whole argument over the 'naturalness' of fires is a total sideshow, simply because they're not natural - they are traditional. I get that it's supposed to be an illustrative analogy, which is why I say I think it's okay, but not as clever as the author seems to think.