points by dredmorbius 5 years ago

Two particularly notable insights, beyond the wildfire history and science, stand out.

I'd just been discussing the general failure of moralisingpathologies (disease, mental health, personal failings, and more, when I saw the same attitute had been applied to wildfire and forestry management:

[F]ire was seen as a social problem, a problem of social order and disorder. [Bernhard Eduard] Fernow looked at the American fire scene and declared that it was all a problem of "bad habits and loose morals.”

You don't solve systems problems by punishing or torturing them. You address specific mechanisms, risk factors, transmmission vectors, and feedbacks.

The other is thinking of wildfire as similar to an epidemic:

To me, Fire is the other contagion. Wildfires can be described as a kind of infection! But fire is a lot like a virus. It's not alive, but it depends on the living world to spread.

Both seem useful models to apply elsewhere.

dkarl 5 years ago

[F]ire was seen as a social problem, a problem of social order and disorder. [Bernhard Eduard] Fernow looked at the American fire scene and declared that it was all a problem of "bad habits and loose morals.”

You left out the part where the person whose attitude is described in that quote came from a climate where "the only fires that occur in your part of the world are ones set by people." So, the problem wasn't necessarily driven by a bad moral habit of ascribing all problems to bad moral habits. He applied an idea that made sense in one context in a different context where it didn't make sense, because "he and his colleagues were smart, committed people, but they had no sense of how fire actually functioned outside of Europe."

You don't solve systems problems by punishing or torturing them

Unless you have more information that this guy had a sadistic authoritarian streak that influenced his policies, I think this is a harsh interpretation.