Bushfires

[Gorth]

Cane Toads were a good idea... on paper

[Walsingham]

If only they were as good an idea on toast.

 

I admire your empathetic powers, Lady, but I still hold my course. Cutting economic activity isn't a zero cost affair. Billions of people the world over are trying to elevate themselves out of a quasi medieval state, and billions more are trying to retain an advanced lifetsyle. Having labour saving devices, cars, travel etc are not simple fripperies. They free us to devote our time to intellectual and spiritual advancements, which we would be incapable of if we were toiling at bark gnawing 12 hours a day. So when someone asks me to sacrifice a trip to Tibet to save a panda I want to know precisely what I'm buying with my sacrifice. Because like any trade-off it may not actually be worth it.

[LadyCrimson]

IThey free us to devote our time to intellectual and spiritual advancements, which we would be incapable of if we were toiling at bark gnawing 12 hours a day. So when someone asks me to sacrifice a trip to Tibet to save a panda I want to know precisely what I'm buying with my sacrifice. Because like any trade-off it may not actually be worth it.

My dear dear Walsh....*laughs good naturedly*

My irrational empathy and your irrational hyperbole would make interesting Forum BBQ debate, complete with Wookie-sized gesticulations and roars.

 

When is that BBQ happening, again?

[Walsingham]

I do like the notion of a BBQ, although teh inability of teh forum to organise anything as simple as a game of Red Orchestra makes me suspect it won't happen.

 

Seriously, though. I'm talking as soeone who walks rather than drives, and who uses public transport wherever possible. I recycle, often with some difficulty. I support being sensible. BUt the green movement seeems hell bent on pushing everywhere, rather than key issues. You can't get a better example than developing nations. No-one wants to address the fact that they are the greatest growing cause of emissions. They don't want to address it because all the poor sods want is some simple things, cars, electricity, running water.

 

If we can't face tough decisions over climate change then we may as well not bother, because there are ONLY tough decisions to be made.

[LadyCrimson]

Humans don't like making changes to lifestyles and imo will naturally be resistant to them even if they make long-term sense for species health. I feel the same way about the population growth issue - that everyone ignores it/doesn't want to talk about it. It's hard to rationally discuss issues that feel like a denial of a "natural right" ... ie, freedom to choose.

 

But ... well ... that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I think human kind will most likely never learn to not make war with each other, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for peace. I know that doesn't address your frustrations about not having info about cost vs reward. but that's all I really have to say about it ... there no way of predicting whether something will forever fail/get worse and thus is not worth ever bothering about, or if something could and will eventually change by the simple virtue of not being ignored by us. That is ruled by optimism vs. pessimism, faith in human intelligence vs. faith in human stupidity.

 

There will be extremists in every cause...don't let them bother you so much.

[Walsingham]

Humans don't like making changes to lifestyles and imo will naturally be resistant to them even if they make long-term sense for species health. I feel the same way about the population growth issue - that everyone ignores it/doesn't want to talk about it. It's hard to rationally discuss issues that feel like a denial of a "natural right" ... ie, freedom to choose.

 

But ... well ... that doesn't mean we should stop trying. I think human kind will most likely never learn to not make war with each other, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for peace. I know that doesn't address your frustrations about not having info about cost vs reward. but that's all I really have to say about it ... there no way of predicting whether something will forever fail/get worse and thus is not worth ever bothering about, or if something could and will eventually change by the simple virtue of not being ignored by us. That is ruled by optimism vs. pessimism, faith in human intelligence vs. faith in human stupidity.

 

There will be extremists in every cause...don't let them bother you so much.

 

 

Extremists DO bother me, tho. Particularly when their dingbat unrealities get people killed. I'm pretty equal about that, whether they're terrorists, greens, or anti-transplants. Because extremists don't care about debate, and without debate there is only war.

 

However, since I've already said many times that I feel war is an inevitable by-product of the very existence of violence I'm now confused and hungry. Although the latter could be the diet I'm on.

[LadyCrimson]

I miss meta and reading his posts. He was great for debating.

[Humodour]

^ We had a lot of environmental commentators blaming climate change for the bushfires - even though some of the bushfires were lit by arsonists.

 

lol, I'm pretty sure arsonists didn't control the weather, though.

 

Arsonists light fires with no wind and 25 degree heat: minor bushfires.

Arsonists light fires in freak wind conditions and 45 degree heat: once in a century bush fires.

[Humodour]

Not to be contrary, since I agree that preventive fires etc. are helpful, but man-made fires are not "letting nature take it's course," it's man trying to control/minimize damage to human lives/structures from nature's wrath, as we try to reshape land to our needs and/or live in areas that aren't "tamed" enough...and the reshaping causes problems (for man). Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't most "nature" fires due to lightning...or volcanoes...and then most other sources would be from man (arson, campfires, backfires etc)? Isn't the real issue less about what's "natural" and more about what is safer for humans?

 

I would say that in Australia at least, man is a part of nature and man-made fires is the natural order of things, since the aboriginies have been doing it for 40,000 years. For man to suddenly stop man-made fires in Australia's bushland, is not the natural thing to do.

 

Fires lit by aborigines have been limited in scope and certainly not large enough or frequent enough to lead to widespread evolutionary changes in the short time they've had access to fire (they certainly haven't been doing their signature controlled burning since they first set foot on here as Africans). Moreover, Australian flora has been relying on fire to reproduce for millions of years, which kind of nullifies whatever silly point you were trying to make anyway.

 

Those who claim controlled backburning is wrong annoy me, but you are no better; the same kind of zealot, just with the opposite agenda.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Fires lit by aborigines have been limited in scope and certainly not large enough or frequent enough to lead to widespread evolutionary changes in the short time they've had access to fire (they certainly haven't been doing their signature controlled burning since they first set foot on here as Africans).

 

Exactly. Aborigines have lit fires. The Greens don't want any fires. I'm saying, lets go back to the way Aboriginies did it.

 

Moreover, Australian flora has been relying on fire to reproduce for millions of years, which kind of nullifies whatever silly point you were trying to make anyway.

 

Those who claim controlled backburning is wrong annoy me, but you are no better; the same kind of zealot, just with the opposite agenda.

 

Exactly my point. My agenda is that lighting fires for back burning is a good thing and also helps australian flora to reproduce. Exactly what you have said. So what is wrong with my 'silly point'? It's the Greens who don't want any fires at all and make it hard to even do the most simple controlled back burning exercise.

 

Also, what kind of zealot are you referring to? What is the opposite agenda to the Greens? Stop shooting your mouth off and explain yourself.