I live in Colorado, and as some of you readers may know, there’s a rather large fire in the northern part ofColoradothat is less than 25% contained. ((I think the value is 20%, but I’m not entirely sure)). The fire was started by lightning, which is good and bad. It’s good in the sense that some idiot didn’t try to burn love letters in a barrel and then never verify that the fire was out. ((Slightly fuzzy memory of what caused a massive fire a decade ago)) But, there’s no one to blame for the damage and devastation, sort of. One of the things being tossed around by people with knowledge is that the rise in “super fires” is a result of people not letting nature run her course. At least inColorado, there are thousands of acres of trees lost to beetle kill, and because the weather is so dry, no one is going out and clearing those trees. So the first has plenty of fuel. Logging isn’t being done as much, so forests are thicker, with more trees together, which mean the fires keep spreading.
So this becomes one of those situations, where we police things so heavily that we are forced to deal with devastating losses to wildlife, buildings, and even people. On the one hand, people want to protect the environment, but at the same time, nature has been “trimming” the fat for significantly longer than we’ve been around, and by preventing the natural course of things, we end up with even larger problems. I’m not advocating that laws change and entire forests get leveled by loggers, so that we don’t have “super fires”, but I’m not sure I’m such a fan of people deciding how forests should be maintained.
I’m reminded of engineering classes where we learned that the universe tends toward equilibrium. We shift that by interfering, but at the same time, we can’t avoid interference. So what do we do? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and consider this a casualty (of war)?