The End to All Forest Fires

reply to post by AlienView


Technology does indeed exist that could stop forest fires.
Who wants to do that though?
1. Such is expensive.
2. The forests NEED to burn. The forests have evolved to burn. It's an important part of forest ecology.

The civilizational type class ratings you refer to do indeed put Earth at a type 0 civilization.
You're referring to the Kardashev scale

In 1964, Kardashev defined three levels of civilizations, based on the order of magnitude of the amount of power available to them:

Type I "Technological level close to the level presently (here referring to 1964) attained on earth, with energy consumption at ≈4×1019 erg/sec[1] (4 × 1012 watts.) Guillermo A. Lemarchand stated this as "A level near contemporary terrestrial civilization with an energy capability equivalent to the solar insolation on Earth, between 1016 and 10 17 watts."

Type II "A civilization capable of harnessing the energy radiated by its own star (for example, the stage of successful construction of a Dyson sphere), with energy consumption at ≈4×1033 erg/sec. Lemarchand stated this as "A civilization capable of utilizing and channeling the entire radiation output of its star. The energy utilization would then be comparable to the luminosity of our Sun, about 4 × 1026 watts."

Type III "A civilization in possession of energy on the scale of its own galaxy, with energy consumption at ≈4×1044 erg/sec."[1] Lemarchand stated this as "A civilization with access to the power comparable to the luminosity of the entire Milky Way galaxy, about 4 × 1037 Watts."

Michio Kaku has suggested that humans might achieve Type I status in about 100–200 years, Type II status in a few thousand years, and Type III status in about 100,000 to a million years.



At the same time, capability of something does not necessarily require exercise or implementation of capability.
As with forest fires, the forests are EVOLVED for and require the occasional burn for a healthy ecology.
We want a healthy forest ecology, so, we maintain a minimal control approach, and don't expend much money or resources in doing so since letting nature do and be on its own in the end is the best policy.

Often enough, when it comes to nature, letting nature do what it does and leaving well enough alone, even if and when human lives are endangered is the best course. There's 8 BILLION humans on the planet. We can stand to let those who want to live in a forest fire zone to live and or die with the risks of doing so.

Money. Now they are looking at the importance of thinning forests (a bit of logging) as a preventative measure. Yes let them burn in some situations but can't let all of them burn (could but think of what that would do - especially because many are human caused.

In the end it costs more to fight them (last few years) than to prevent them via controlled burns or thinning.

I went to "fire fighting school", in the Navy. I also put out my first fire with a "pee", I had set a fire, in the forest, in North Carolina when I was around 7 with my magnifying glass...boy did I panic!! (and peed).

I lived in Orange County, Calif., and the fires there were a yearly thing "the Santa Ana winds", you could see the hills on fire from my house.

We need the birds, bats, and the bugs in nature, they help give the forests some fire resistance, giving the plants nitrogen in the proper form. Animals peeing out there also help.

We can't keep spraying chemicals that hurt these creatures, the balance of nature is off tilt. These only retard fire, they don't make it so things don't ever burn. Be a friend to nature, go pee next to a tree.

reply to post by Druscilla

We want a healthy forest ecology, so, we maintain a minimal control approach, and don't expend much money or resources in doing so since letting nature do and be on its own in the end is the best policy. Often enough, when it comes to nature, letting nature do what it does and leaving well enough alone, even if and when human lives are endangered is the best course. There's 8 BILLION humans on the planet. We can stand to let those who want to live in a forest fire zone to live and or die with the risks of doing so.

Of course if humans were to take that line which does make sense, why don't we extend the nature is best
line of thought and get rid of medicine, makes us weak, survival of the fittest is the natural way to go; And while
were at it those cars just pollute the atmosphere and also make us weak, horses and donkeys are more
natural; and things like electricity and indoor plumbing, very unnatural and we should get rid of that too? I do some times admire cultures like the Amish who reject all those modern inventions like electricity and still travel on horse carts........But getting back to forest fires if w'ere going to go all natural why stop them at all - the firefighters are battling nature - Are you trying to say fire is natural and fighting fires is unnatural? But don't mind me, I sometimes don't understand human thinking thats why I call myself - AlienView

reply to post by AlienView

to save homes and buildings from forest fires , would it not be better to refuse planning permission for any properties that are to be built any closer to the tree line than say 100 yards .

also to refuse planning permission for any building that is not built using brick and mortar as apposed to timber frame construction .

Originally posted by AlienView
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Of course if humans were to take that line which does make sense, why don't we extend the nature is best
line of thought and get rid of medicine, makes us weak, survival of the fittest is the natural way to go; And while
were at it those cars just pollute the atmosphere and also make us weak, horses and donkeys are more
natural; and things like electricity and indoor plumbing, very unnatural and we should get rid of that too? I do some times admire cultures like the Amish who reject all those modern inventions like electricity and still travel on horse carts........But getting back to forest fires if w'ere going to go all natural why stop them at all - the firefighters are battling nature - Are you trying to say fire is natural and fighting fires is unnatural? But don't mind me, I sometimes don't understand human thinking thats why I call myself - AlienView

Human beings are not a forest, regardless of how much some might like to think so.
Sure, one could take the nature vs. nurture approach and claim that going tribal natural is healthier for a human being and, and in some respects this might be true.
On the other hand, we've sufficient data to indicate the evolution of of the human animal has progressed away from purely natural such that humans require a human manipulated, engineered environment to be and stay healthy.
Before modern food preservatives, antibiotics, medicine and all the trappings of the modern world even back to just a few hundred years ago, people commonly lived into their 40s and 50s.
Now, the health of human mortality is such, people live more commonly into their 80s.

Survival of the fittest is often misinterpreted, just as you've done, in erroneously thinking it has something to do with being red of tooth and claw. In actuality, survival of the fittest has to do with adaptation, and Humans have adapted a successful social tactic, or fitness in sticking together and engineering their local environments to insulate them from the fussier bits of nature to live longer, healthier, more productive lives.

All that electricity, flushing toilets, motor vehicles, prepackaged food, shopping malls, air conditioning, discotechs, cell phones, medicine, fashionable clothing and other such are all artifacts of a successful survival fitness adaptation.

I suggest anyone interested in knowing more about the hows and whys of humanity invest some time in studying Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology.
Such can all be done for free:
700+ FREE online Courses from Top Universities
One could get the entire length and breadth of a University education using such a resource. Since free, it's non-accredited, so one couldn't even get an Associates certificate, but, the material is there.

Take a zoological approach in studying humans if necessary. You're asking questions about humans that anyone studying any other animal in the wild would already have answers for. Why do elephants, rabbits, fish or insects behave the way they do? Why do humans?

reply to post by Druscilla

I would suggest that all college courses in the world will not make humans smarter than the dumb animals they
sometimes think like. Take forest fires for example which some of you seem to be enjoying becuase they are
'natural' occurrences

"Western Wildfires Tax Firefighting Resources, Push Spending Past $1 Billion"

FRESNO, Calif. — An out-of-control forest fire threatening about 2,500 structures near Yosemite National Park was one of more than 50 active, large wildfires dotting the western U.S. on Wednesday. The remote blaze in Stanislaus National Forest west of Yosemite grew to more than 25 square miles and was only 5 percent contained, threatening homes, hotels and camp buildings. The fire has led to the voluntary evacuation of the private gated summer community of Pine Mountain Lake, which has a population of 2,800, as well as several organized camps, at least two campgrounds and dozens of other private homes. Two residences and seven outbuildings have been destroyed.

The resolution said the fire was "directly threatening various communities and businesses" and "beyond our capabilities," according to the Modesto Bee. The fire was among the nation's top firefighting priorities, according to the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. Fifty-one major uncontained wildfires are burning throughout the West, according to the center, including in California, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. More than 19,000 firefighters were fighting the fires. But the U.S. Forest Service, the nation's top wildfire-fighting agency, said Wednesday that it is running out of money to fight wildfires and is diverting $600 million from timber, recreation and other areas to fill the gap. The agency said it had spent $967 million so far this year and was down to $50 million – typically enough to pay for just a few days of fighting fires when the nation is at its top wildfire preparedness level, which went into effect Tuesday. There have been more than 32,000 fires this year that have burned more than 5,300 square miles.

See complete article here:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

And at least most of it appears 'natural', started by lightning. So should we do what some of you say, stay
away from the forest, too dangerous? But when you think about it tornados and other 'natural' events are
also dangerous - should people move back into caves? Caves are safer usually - the human race can go back
to the days of cave dwellers and avoid all these 'natural' fires.

I would think the species man can do better than accept that paradigm - an evolving species masters its
environment or becomes extinct - and mastering man's environment requires mastering threats to the
environment whether caused by nature or man's mistakes. To reject advances in technology because they
are interrfering with 'natural' disasters is to reject progress and the future - And to many Man is not a natural
occurence and can no longer accept being subject to the whims of nature - he either rules the so called natural
environment he is located in or ends up being no more than another species to go extinct.















.

reply to post by AlienView


Once again, I endorse education.
Not only will education teach one the differences between 'accept' and 'except', but also how to engage in critical thinking.

I would think the species man can do better than except that paradigm ...

... And to many Man is not a natural occurence and can no longer except being subject

No one is saying to go live in a cave.
Living in a forest fire zone, or on the side of a volcano, however, it doesn't take much by way of cognitive horsepower to realize an eventuality, accept it, plan for such eventualities, and clean up the mess after they occur.
There's no point in shedding unnecessary tears, or advancing preventative monies beyond rationale when it comes to predictable, inevitable, and common forces of nature.
Mankind has only itself to blame for inadequate preparations, and/or building design where common natural disaster threats are a common annual and/or regular pervasive threat.

reply to post by Druscilla


I agree with you Dru... almost 100%. But, Its the nature of "good folks", to try and stop, "bad things", and fires that destroy homes and property in "this" day and age, are , "bad", we try to stop them, prevent them, over come them, shorten them, control them..etc..its what "we" do. ...I hope we get better at it.



Well the dawn was coming,
heard him ringing on my bell
He said, "My name's the teacher,
that is what I call myself
And I have a lesson
that I must impart to you
It's an old expression
but I must insist it's true
Jump up, look around,
find yourself some fun,
no sense in sitting there hating everyone
No man's an island and his castle isn't home,
the nest is for nothing when the bird has flown"
So I took a journey,
threw my world into the sea
With me went the teacher
who found fun instead of me
Hey man, what's the plan, what was that you said?
Sun-tanned, drink in hand, lying there in bed
I try to socialize but I can't seem to find
what I was looking for, got something on my mind
Then the teacher told me
it had been a lot of fun
Thanked me for his ticket
and all that I had done
Hey man, what's the plan, what was that you said?
Sun-tanned, drink in hand, lying there in bed
I try to socialize but I can't seem to find
what I was looking for, got something on my mind

Note the following:

"The role of fire in the world’s vegetation is ambivalent. In some ecosystems natural fires are essential to maintain ecosystem dynamics, biodiversity and productivity. Fire is also an important and widely used tool to meet land management goals. However, every year, wildfires destroy millions of hectares of forest woodlands and other vegetation, causing the loss of many human and animal lives and an immense economic damage, both in terms of resources destroyed and the costs of suppression. There are also impacts on society and the environment – for example, damage to human health from smoke, loss of biological diversity, release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gasses, damage to recreational values and much more."

See entire article here:
www.fao.org...

The reason we have huge wildfires today is because for the past 100 years we have followed the line of reasoning that we MUST fight to extinguish EVERY wild land fire.

The unforeseen result of this has been forests overcrowded with small trees growing so close together that none of the trees thrive because the soils cannot support them all.

These weakened trees are susceptible to diseases and parasites. This is why the bark beetle has devastated the forests in the western US.
Because we have these dense thickets of unhealthy/dead standing forests, we are seeing these huge conflagrations known as wildland wildfires.

Because of our interference in nature's way of keeping the forest healthy for the past 100 years, we will continue to see these wildfires until balance is returned.

As a former wildland firefighter, I believe that unless human life, archeological sites or property is at risk, it is best to allow these wildfires to burn.

Just my 2 beans

Not one of my more popular posts - the back to nature mentality seemed to be the consensus.

Sure, why build a house with a roof over your head - Why oppose nature? - Enjoy the great outdoors.

Well naturalists enjoy what is happening in Canada

Photos from the monster forest fire ravaging western Canada

Gusting winds and “tinder-dry” conditions were feeding the beast of a blaze in western Canada early Friday, as officials warned it could be days or weeks before evacuated locals can return home. The fires in the province of Alberta forced 88,000 people to flee and destroyed more than 1,600 structures. Officials were waiting to see if it would be safe to get another convoy of evacuees out on Friday, according to local media. Around 328 square miles have been scorched. Alberta Premier Rachel Notley praised the “herculean” firefighter response but warned late Thursday that the inferno could spread due to “tinder dry” conditions. “They are very early days,” she told a press conference. “There is much more to do and more help will be needed.”

See whole article and photos here:
www.msnbc.com...


The failure of Man to control and conquer his environment is reflective of a species that can not evolve to its potential.

Aliens [assuming you believe they exist] still fail to understand Human stupidity - How can a species so smart in one
way be so dumb in others


"I've done made a deal with the devil. He said he's going to give me an air-conditioned place when I go down there,
if I go there, so I won't put all the fires out."
- Red Adair





THE FUTURE IS NOW !!!








"SCIENCEFICTIONALISM the Way of the FUTURE"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: AlienView
The failure of Man to control and conquer his environment is reflective of a species that can not evolve to its potential.

This statement doesn't make any sense. So because we still face wildfires, we will no longer continue to evolve?

originally posted by: AlienView
You watch the news, you see the forests going up in smoke, thousands of fireman risking their lives and millions of dollars spent; And then after a week or two and thousands and thousands of acres of forest up in smoke they let
local residents return to their homes - if they still have a home left - too often they don't.

And as it is going on you see one, sometimes two or so planes with fire-retardant spraying the forest to help control
the fire; And you ask [at least I do], if these planes are actually capable of controlling forest fires how come they do
not have a large force, say a hundred or even a thousand of these planes at specially built regional airports around
the country and the moment a forest fire begins the well trained force of air fire control pilots go out and in a pre-
planned attack kill the fire fast before it spreads - My alien imagination asks aren't you humans capable of
stopping a simple forest fire? - Can you at least graduate to a 'Stage One Civilization' and control your own environment?

Forest fires are NECESSARY. The fact that we attempt to reduce their occurrences is precisely why when they happen they are so grossly out of control. When there are no forest fires then there becomes a build up of overgrowth, that overgrowth is literally fuel for the fire -- hence when one eventually, [read; inevitably] happens, it's up to 10x larger than it should have been.

In case you're wondering why they are necessary, well that's because many seeds will not sprout unless they are exposed to the extreme heat and smoke of a fire -- that said, weeds and grass, vines and fallen branches of the already living forest pile up when there isn't a fire.

Forest fire is nature's way of doing two things, keeping it's forests neat and clean and propagating them. The reason we keep having huge giant forest fires that are spreading into towns and decimating people's homes is precisely because the common consensus is to try to eliminate forest fires. They share your opinion -- which needless to say, isn't based on science, fact, or nature.

New research is revealing how plant seeds depend on smoke and even heat from fires to get them to sprout. It's a smart strategy for the seed, of course: smoke comes from fires, and fires mean that the soil is probably fertile with new ash. Plus, if weeds and grass have been burned to the ground, a new seed will have little competition.
Let them burn, folks. Extinguishing forest fires is a bad strategy for preventing them. If you keep putting out the fires, they'll just get bigger when they do burn through. And while trees can easily survive a typical fire, if the underbrush has built up for too long (thanks to humans putting out all the fires), when it lights up, it will kill all the trees and devastate the forest.

Forest fires help in the natural cycle of woods' growth and replenishment. They:

-Release seeds or otherwise encourage the growth of certain tree species, like lodgepole pines
-Clear dead trees, leaves, and competing vegetation from the forest floor, so new plants can grow
-Break down and return nutrients to the soil
-Remove weak or disease-ridden trees, leaving more space and nutrients for stronger trees
-Keep tree stands thin and open, letting more sunlight in so trees stay healthier
-Improve wildlife habitat

But when fires burn too hot or when they’re in the “wildland-urban interface” (the places where woodlands and homes or other developed areas meet), they can be damaging and dangerous. Some possible effects of these fires are:

-Damaged or destroyed trees—when fires burn too intensely and reach tree crowns, they can hurt even strong, well--established trees
-Charred, damaged soils
-Floods or landslides in areas where the soil is most severely burned
-Damaged homes and other structures
-Smoke, which can irritate the eyes and respiratory system and worsen chronic heart and lung diseases, including asthma.

When we successfully prevent fires, when enough fuel builds up and the inevitable fire does happen, it gets so hot and so big that it even damages healthy trees that otherwise would never have been burned. We're killing peoples homes and killing the forest by preventing forest fires.

Smokey the Bear was created as propaganda.

War propaganda doesn't typically have a long shelf life. Smokey Bear is an exception.

The United States Forest Service launched the Smokey Bear anti-forest fire campaign on Aug. 9, 1944, making Saturday the character's 70th birthday. While generations of Americans consider Smokey synonymous with forest protection, it was actually the start of America's involvement in World War II that inspired his birth.

The Forest Service and the federal government at large were also worried about Japanese forces starting forest fires on American soil, which they tried to do several times during the war.

So the anti-forest fire brigade was based on fear mongering propaganda -- only it didn't go away when the war ended, it stuck around and today we have what you see in Canada and California. People being made homeless because of irresponsible forest practices started because of propaganda from WWII.

You do NOT WANT TO PREVENT forest fires, you want them to happen more frequently -- the more frequent they are, the smaller and more controlled they become. The problem only started once we started attempting to control our environment. Not that environmental control is wrong or impossible, we're just doing it wrong. The answer isn't more water and fire retardant, it's more fire and a more regular and natural interval.

Themoreyouknow.

originally posted by: AlienViewnot have a large force, say a hundred or even a thousand of these planes at specially built regional airports around

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to purchase, staff and maintain that number of aircraft all year round??? It would be in the region of hundreds of billions.