Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let Forest Fires Burn

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#101

Post by knieveltech »

msla wrote: post #11
knieveltech wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, you don't hate Mondays, you hate capitalism.

You don't hate capitalism, you hate badly-regulated capitalism. Besides, homes burn just as much in a socialist society.

No, I'm pretty sure that I hate capitalism. We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism, that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority, and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#102

Post by twothamendment »

motowilliams wrote: post #87
falcolas wrote: post #21

Speaking as a Montanan here. The policy of "let some fires burn" has been in practice for a few decades now in our corner of the woods. Ever since the Yellowstone fire in the 80's, we've focused our efforts on containment instead of extinguishment (i.e. make a best effort to keep it away from human settlements); letting land lost to the fires just burn out naturally while stopping them from claiming too much land. Sh…

Another Montanan here as well. As the Lolo Peak Fire burns 6 miles from my house it is frustrating to me that the DNRC's hands are tied by regulation that prevents them thinning and keep our forests healthy. It is both a revenue stream for our school system and an important role in keeping the woods healthy. Unfortunately both wildlife and habitat conservation has some aspects that are counter-intuitive to most folks…

This might set a record for the number of Montanan's posting! I'm in Montana too and spent last night watching 4 fires started by lightning. Some places not too far away were evacuated. We had ash and embers raining down last night. It is crazy to see let it burn articles without a companion that promotes healthy forest management by logging. I'm all for contain and let burn, but the amount of fuel on the ground in places is insane.

I had my own property logged - luckily you can still do that. I cleared around my house and thinned out the rest. It didn't destroy the forest, it created jobs, created some lumber and some pulp for paper. In a few years the remaining trees will grow straighter, stronger and better resist insects. How is this bad? It is frustrating to see so much public land overgrown to the point it can't be used and isn't good for wildlife.

Good forest management has to include some logging. If you disagree, please stop using paper, especially toilet paper.

Thanks to all the men and women who rush towards the fire when others are leaving. Listening to them on the radio last night - they were doing a great job under pressure and while dealing with some nervous people.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#103

Post by msla »

knieveltech wrote: post #101
msla wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't hate capitalism, you hate badly-regulated capitalism. Besides, homes burn just as much in a socialist society.

No, I'm pretty sure that I hate capitalism. We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism, that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority, and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.

> We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism

Funny, that's what socialism ends up producing, with the nomenklatura in charge.

> that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority

Again, this is what socialism results in.

> and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.

This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#104

Post by int_19h »

msla wrote: post #99
int_19h wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but in a socialist society you then get a new home, because the entire population is in the mandatory risk insurance pool for that, effectively. (Quality of said homes is a different and orthogonal question.)

In a socialist society, you'd live where the state puts you, and any back-talk would be regarded as a mental disease (sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia, for one the USSR like to use) and treated as such. Also, I doubt the socialist state would be able to supply a new home before I was ready for a state-supplied grave.

I grew up in a socialist society - indeed, the very one that you mention.

You're right that you wouldn't get your pick of where to live in most cases.

But you're wrong that they wouldn't supply you with some living space right away, if the one you were living on is gone. It would be a shitty living space more likely than not (e.g. a communal apartment), but you'd have a roof over your head for sure.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#105

Post by twothamendment »

sliverstorm wrote: post #67
falcolas wrote: post #21

Speaking as a Montanan here. The policy of "let some fires burn" has been in practice for a few decades now in our corner of the woods. Ever since the Yellowstone fire in the 80's, we've focused our efforts on containment instead of extinguishment (i.e. make a best effort to keep it away from human settlements); letting land lost to the fires just burn out naturally while stopping them from claiming too much land. Sh…

But it's never so easy Yeah, sure, there's problems. But mother nature cares not. The fuel load will continue to build until it burns, unless we remove it ourselves. That's the shortsightednes of "let fires burn but... ", IMO. One day it will burn, whether you like it or not, unless you're willing to pay from now until kingdom come for manual fuel reduction. The only question is will it burn on our terms or hers ? In…

"...unless you're willing to pay from now until kingdom come for manual fuel reduction..."

We can't do this everywhere, but I reduced the fuel on my property for exactly $0. No government grants, no tax payer money - the timber paid for it. As a bonus it was done in the winter so it disturbed very little ground.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#106

Post by twothamendment »

coryrc wrote: post #65
falcolas wrote: post #21

Speaking as a Montanan here. The policy of "let some fires burn" has been in practice for a few decades now in our corner of the woods. Ever since the Yellowstone fire in the 80's, we've focused our efforts on containment instead of extinguishment (i.e. make a best effort to keep it away from human settlements); letting land lost to the fires just burn out naturally while stopping them from claiming too much land. Sh…

Firefighters are dying to protect the private property of people who live in the forests so they can save money not building a fire-safe house. We need regular burns to keep the brush down, but we can't because rich people's houses are in the path. The forest was there first; it's time to stop protecting people from financial loss because of their poor decisions.

For what it is worth, the huge fire linked to by the parent wasn't in a forest, but I suppose people shouldn't live outside of a city?

For some of us, living in a city seems as stupid as living outside of one seems to others. Each has their risk, but when a person is mugged or killed in a city I don't blame them for a poor decision.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#107

Post by twothamendment »

sliverstorm wrote: post #72
jgh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe, at least in California, households that have taken some effort to make their property more resilient to fire are given higher priority. I heard an interview with a firefighter on the radio talking about this a few weeks back.

Similarly, I hear houses that have been allowed to become completely indefensible (e.g., boughs on the roof, no fire clearing) are simply abandoned.

That depends on where you live. I can't have tress within 30 feed of my house, had to have a fire rated roof, etc. I wasn't going to complain about rules like that, especially with ash and embers raining down last night!

I've seen some very nice houses with tress so close you can reach out the window and touch the trunk. I guess they have another home to go to when that one burns.

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#108

Post by sliverstorm »

twothamendment wrote: post #107
sliverstorm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, I hear houses that have been allowed to become completely indefensible (e.g., boughs on the roof, no fire clearing) are simply abandoned.

That depends on where you live. I can't have tress within 30 feed of my house, had to have a fire rated roof, etc. I wasn't going to complain about rules like that, especially with ash and embers raining down last night! I've seen some very nice houses with tress so close you can reach out the window and touch the trunk. I guess they have another home to go to when that one burns.

No, I think they just expect firefighters will lay down their lives defending their property, and installing a fire rated roof because you live in a fire zone is "burdensome".

(by abandoned, I meant the firefighters abandon the doomed houses that do not have defensible space)

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#109

Post by dennyabraham »

discodave wrote: post #90
wahern wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the "just let it burn" strategy when fires start might lead to a lot more property damage than a strategy of proactive burning. The U.S. is _huge_. There's too much land to do controlled burning. And an intentionally set fire is morally perilous, so there are strong incentives to avoid burning except where it's easy and obvious; that is, _away_ from housing or in only very small patches to create fire breaks. Als…

The US is only 25% bigger than Australia and has more than 10x the population.... soo the argument that the US is too big doesn't really hold much water. * 3.797 to 2.97 square miles * 323 / 24 million

This does not take into account the vastly greater proportion of habitable or treed land in the US than in Australia

Re: Let Forest Fires Burn

#110

Post by knieveltech »

msla wrote: post #103
knieveltech wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm pretty sure that I hate capitalism. We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism, that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority, and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources.

> We're talking about a system engineered from the ground up to produce quasi-feudalism Funny, that's what socialism ends up producing, with the nomenklatura in charge. > that fails to address even the most basic needs of the majority Again, this is what socialism results in. > and has a built in auto-destruct due to it's reliance on unlimited continuous growth despite relying on finite non-renewable resources. This…

> This is factually incorrect. Economic growth can come from reducing use of resources.

Yeah, it really isn't. At best you can produce a handful of outliers that support this point. Meanwhile there's the rest of the economy. I'm guessing you won't enjoy a review of the growth of shipping and logistics internationally if you're trying to sell someone on this bit of mythology. Also, piss on your whataboutism, it fails to address any criticisms of the system you're attempting to defend. There are several working examples of socialism in practice around the world right now that are not resulting in soviet-era Yugoslavia. Additionally your implication that alternative economic models can only result in historical failures disregards humanity's ability to innovate. Perhaps this is a failure of imagination on your part?

Post reply on HN