iirc the long-term explanation of wildfires is that building human habitations too close to natural fire zones leads to over-aggressive control of small fires leading to underbrush build up over years and bigger fires. Is this roughly correct?
Conversation
Replying to
Pretty much what I remember reading about this issue before "muh climate" became the default explanation for literally anything that happens on, or under, the unpaved parts of the Earth's surface.
1
1
Replying to
Climate definitely contributes as longer hot/dry spells exacerbate the situation. Climate change in general is like stress in the human body. It increases the probability of certain kinds of extreme scenario.
1
2
Show replies
Replying to
pretty sure climate change and related droughts also have been playing a role
1
Replying to
Yup, they've acted as a compounding factor on base dynamics.
1
Show replies
Replying to
Kinda like an inversion of anti-fragility no?
Antifragility assumes constant corrections to a system to make it more resilient over time.
This is helicopter parenting equivalent of enviro stewardship leading to net fragility.
1
1
3
Replying to
Yeah, interesting thought to tease out there. The suppression of smaller fires doesn't induce hormesis but actually compromises defenses at higher doses.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
Roughly yes. Fires would still happen without suppression but severity has increased. Akin to playing with regulation and the financial markets
1
Replying to
Partially; fire suppression policies and limits on logging/thinning (some good, some with unintended consequences) and mismanagement of grassland ecosystems are big factors in less populated areas
1
5
Replying to
To me the biggest contrast in the emerging "fire vs. civilization" narrative is that fire moves but settlements don't.
2






