Gerhard Adam

Having just read an article about forest fires [How the Smokey Bear Effect Led To Raging Wildfires], I was struck by the obvious question of why this should be a problem.

In effect, it illustrates one of the primary difficulties we face, as humans, in a modern society, equipped with all manner of scientific knowledge and yet seemingly unable to solve the simplest problems.

When viewed in this light, it isn't difficult to see why many recent controversies produce so many diverse responses regarding global climate change or GMO foods.  Each of these issues faces exactly the same kind of problem; namely that science doesn't really matter except in its use as a bludgeon to coerce the "other side" into acceptance of a particular position.

So as long as we agree with the science, then it is good and progressive.  If we disagree then the scientists are simply charlatans, shills for whatever special interest, or incompetent.

The average individual may have an overall better sense of rudimentary science than in the past, but most people [including scientists] still barely grasp its role in our society.

While many may disagree with me, my view is that science is simply the process of inquiry. We wish to know something or to examine the behavior or events of some phenomenon, so we investigate.  We observe, gather data, and try to reach logical conclusions for interpreting that data until we arrive at what we consider is sufficient understanding of the phenomenon.

The methods we employ [i.e. the scientific method, mathematics], are all intended to reduce or eliminate bias as much as possible, so that we can try to assess the information we've gathered in as objective a manner as possible.  This is not a guarantee. It is simply a method.

When we set additional criteria in repeatability, predictability, etc. we get comfortable that whatever explanation we have discovered is applicable, and we can expect that we have found out something about how the world works [even if it is incomplete].

Now for the difficult bit.  At this point science stops.  In short, once the information is discovered and made available, then whatever else happens it is no longer science.

The next step is where humans usually get into trouble; in taking the information and attempting to exploit it.  This may result in technological developments, it may result in manipulations of the world around us, or it may simply serve to offer some predictive capability of events in the world [i.e. weather].  While often couched in the terminology of science, these are also decisions affected by politics, economics, and personal belief/bias.

This isn't to say that everything humans have done causes troubles, but invariably we seem to have difficulty when it comes to trying to direct the world to behave according to our understanding.  So, while we can build bridges, airplanes, skyscrapers, etc. with minimal problems, we usually have more difficulty when it comes to actually responding to a world we don't directly control, or "nature".

In part, it is because of this relationship with "nature" that there can be a tendency to simply presume that whatever "nature" does is what is "intended".  Our sense of "control" in this environment is sketchy and suspect.  Historically we've often been promised more benefits than may actually be realized, and so in part, people have become skeptical of claims regarding control of "nature".

Part of the problem is that "nature" doesn't have a goal or objective, so it isn't constrained to having a plan for the future.  The way events unfold is completely "natural", so there's nothing to be done.  However, when humans attempt to exercise control, we invariably forget to recognize that we now have set an objective that must be actively managed, and requires a continuous commitment of resources to ensure that our control isn't subverted by some "natural" process.  As an example, this is precisely why antibiotics can be so miraculous when they were first introduced, but may now be responsible for creating even greater threats to be faced in the future with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Similarly we find the same arguments applied when we look at biological solutions to our problems such as GMO foods and often, again, find historical precedence that suggests that our short-term solutions often yield longer term problems [i.e. cane toads].

So, what does all this have to do with forest fires?

It's simple.  Fire is arguably one of the base "technologies" for which humans have the longest history of use and experience.  Yet we find that in its "natural" state, fire fulfilled exactly the requirements necessary to maintain a healthy eco-system.  It is only after humans determined that "they knew better" that we began to experience the problems that have proven to be significantly more destructive than the force we were attempting to control (1). 

"The irony here is that the argument for setting these areas aside as national forests and parks was, to a large extent, to protect them from fire," Pyne says. "Instead, over time they became the major habitat for free-burning fire."

So why can't it be fixed.  Economics, politics, and personal belief dictate that the science doesn't really matter, because those other interests will simply deny the science. People have homes, there are insurance costs, there is the discomfort of smoke, etc. (2)  All of these offer the excuse of not doing what we know needs to be done to our forests.  So we wait until they explode, and become dozens if not hundreds of times more destructive than they would normally be.

"Actually, I think in some cases, they're fire behavior that probably these forests haven't seen in millennia or maybe even tens of thousands of years"

For many people the idea of "Mother Nature" implies a kind of wisdom in how the world works, and many scientists simply scoff at such an idea.  However, both views miss the point.  The point being simply that the world evolved to work the way it does.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

Therefore it isn't that small controlled burns are more "natural".  They are simply the pattern of how the world worked, and consequently the plants living in those environments evolved to cope with those patterns.  When humans change the pattern, the result is invariably chaos.  

So, while it may sound too spiritual or mystical to talk about "nature's rhythms", we would do well to pay attention.  Humans can barely envision the consequences of their actions 10 to 20 years into the future.  Nature works in multi-million year segments, so our biggest impediment to success is our hubris which invariably proves to be short-sighted.

With regards to the forests of the Southwest:

"The choice is not whether or not these forests burn," Armstrong says. "The choice is how they burn. What kind of intensity are we going to see those burn at?"

"Basically, the mountains in the Southwest — you can almost think of them as caskets of fuel," Allen says. "Gunpowder has been building up in these things for a century, and now it's dangerous to try to defuse."

In this respect, the question simply seems to be how bad is it going to get.  There's not much positive to say about it.

When it comes to many of the other technologies we're currently looking to exploit and the progress being made for greater and greater exploitation of "nature", let's see if we can avoid having this same conversation a few years down the road.  

Unfortunately I expect that we won't have learned our lessons, and instead we can look forward to someone in the future saying:

"Well, we made the best decision with the data on hand at the time".  

Which simply means: "We didn't really know what we were doing, but went and did it anyway".

=========================
(1) Interestingly despite having literally tens of thousands of years of experience in using fire, humans demonstrated by these decisions that they understood next to nothing about its dynamics and interaction in "nature".

(2) But people have built homes and towns close to forests; they don't like the smoke, and prescribed burns sometimes get out of control.