Burning Matters
Forest fires seem a rather dry topic (excuse the pun) for a blog. But the libertarian & scientist in me find them utterly fascinating debate-food.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/004e5/004e50ff9e2133c63ca106889438a3868edafdf5" alt=""
Why man never seems inclined to stop and ponder the "why's" of certain natural phenomena, I will never know. Surely it is obvious that nature, without external interference, has evolved into some sort of fragile balance where everything has its purpose? And that forest fires, in their own right, are likely to serve a purpose in this fragile ecosystem of ours? If forest fires DON't occur, old trees do not get replaced by younger trees. Dead wood, twigs, leaves etc... no longer get incinerated on a regular basis and start to accumulate. Thus yielding far higher burnable fuels in case a fire DOES strike. The natural dynamics which keep forests in a healthy natural state, require forest fires. It's as simple as that.
Trying to prevent forest fires from happening is, to put it crudely, like trying to stop earthquakes from happening. Whereas we all know earthquakes are merely a necessary release of pressure on faultlines as the earth's tectonic plates move. They restore balance.
Isn't that ironic? Despite all the efforts of man to curb the devastation forest fires cause to the human population, it is now man himself that sets them alight. The most striking examples I thought were the firefighters that were arrested because they set some forests on fire, just so they could strike up a financial bonus at the end of the summer. And the developpers, keen to get their hands on areas that were protected against building expansion by governement rules.
It seems nature, by way of man's greed, has found a way to restore balance yet again.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home