Protect the last of the wild

Citation needed. In my experience this has not been the case, but I was on national forest land, not BLM land, so there may be a difference in management practices.

> "I've lived here my entire life, so clearly without devoting any actual effort to studying the ecosystem I know what's best because hey, the trees look pretty good to me!"

That's not at all what my post said, you are attacking a strawman.

There are some studies that are coming out that undermine your idea that vegans are inherently healthier, such as the notice that vegetarians appear to have higher rates of cavities than the population at large. If you ask an anthropologist you'll know this is a big deal, because dental health is a great indicator of overall health.

I think all the arguments about the vegetarianism saving the world are bunk, and a convenient reason for us all to not talk about the real issue: oil.

My meat comes from animals that graze on grass, as has been the case for millenia. The millions of buffalo that ran around north America a few centuries ago didn't warm the planet with their farts, so why should properly managed grass fed cows do the same?

On the other hand, what is new is large scale industrial monoculture agriculture. I am dubious to the concept that we can transition the world over to plant based without planting a lot of soy, something that I think is bad.

Side note: we have been managing cattle poorly for years. The proper way is to pen them into relatively tight (but not cramped) portions of the grazing land, and then rotate them from section to section regularly. This mimics the way that herding animals react to predators (cluster up), and gives the grasses time to recover and sequester carbon. It's also far more land efficient than other methods, which is nice.

Edit: it looks like 84% of world wide calories come from plants already. Doesn’t seem to be doing anything to stop global warming to me. Maybe it’s the fact that we’re still using fossil fuels instead?

Though I don't disagree with your general point, just that there are a fair number of people who make it and still want to be in the city.

I'd still rather be in the city. It's just too expensive, though, since there's a shortage of housing here (honestly "here" could be most cities with good tech industries) and I value being in the city less than a young person who still goes out a lot - and crucially, doesn't have a kid.

If it helps, I'm buying a few acres of grazing land an hour from the city by train - grazing land is basically sterile wasteland for ecological purposes - and planning to reforest it, while working remote. But we need a lot more than a few acres. And we need those places to be livable without a car. I rode a bike from the train station to view the property, but places you can do that without a death wish are far too rare.

This is just flat out false, anti-science disinformation. Fire suppression as a policy started in the 1930s and actually reverted in the 60's and 70's.

>The first national fire policy came after several years of severe fires between 1910 and 1935. In the context of the ecological theory of the time, fire exclusion was believed to promote ecological stability. In addition, fire exclusion could also reduce commodity damages and economic losses. In 1935, the USDA Forest Service instituted the “10 AM Policy,” wherein the objective was to prevent all human-caused fires and contain any fire that started by 10 a.m. the following day. By the 1960s, fire management costs were increasing exponentially. The 1964 Wilderness Act, Tall Timbers Research Conferences, and Southern Forest Fire Lab research demonstrated the positive benefits derived from natural and prescribed fire. As a result, national fire policy began to evolve to address both the economic and ecological benefits of not aggressively controlling, and even using, fire. In February 1967, the USDA Forest Service permitted leeway for early- and late-season fires. In 1968, the National Park Service changed its policy to recognize the natural role of fire, allow natural ignitions to run their course under prescribed conditions, and use prescribed fires to meet management objectives. In 1971, the USDA Forest Service 10-Acre Policy was added, which set a pre-suppression objective of containing all fires within 10 acres. In 1977 a new fire policy was selected by the USDA Forest Service that replaced both the 10 AM and 10-Acre policies. The new policy encouraged a pluralistic approach — fire by prescription. Even for suppression, once initial attack failed, alternatives to full suppression were to be considered. Fire suppression became fire management.The 1994 fire season with its 34 fatalities (14 at South Canyon, Colorado) precipitated the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy & Program Review (1995 Report). This review again affirmed the positive benefits of fire. It recognized that fire was part of a larger problem, one of several symptoms of natural ecosystems becoming increasingly unstable due to altered ecological regimes. It talked about the needs for landscape-level resource management, the integration of fire into land management planning and implementation, and the involvement of all affected landowners and stakeholders.[0]

[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20070810191055/http://www.nifc.g...