this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
842 points (99.3% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
9571 readers
119 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are they real morons or fantastic trolls?
Definitely trolls.
Last time I saw this I concluded it's locals leaving 1 Star reviews to lessen tourists visiting these spots.
I respect that
Gotta shoot out the window a couple times per year to keep the rent low
You wish. Take, as a shining beacon of wisdom, the current US president - he thinks Canada’s wildfires are to blame on them not raking the twigs from between the trees.
Nah that's just him reflexively victim blaming, ’cause he's a rapist.
Australian Aboriginal nations actually do this. They use cold fire to burn the underbrush, while leaving the trees intact. It's hot enough to burn up the twigs, but not hot enough to harm the trees. It reduces the chance of dangerous fires, and it's been going on for so long, many plants have evolved to require fire as part of their life cycle.
I don't think this is really as settled or clear as you're making out.
The cold or cool fire you're talking about just means they burn every year, there's less fuel load so the fire burns out before larger trees have time to burn.
Traditionally they weren't doing this out of care for the land, it just makes hunting far easier - kangaroos like to eat the new shoots after a fire, and it's easier to chase / throw things at them if there's thinner underbrush.
Land management organisations have been making informed decisions about controlled burns since forever. They consider all the factors, like fuel load, weather, risks to property, and input from community groups including indigenous Australians.
It's controversial because these controlled burns often become uncontrolled fires.
Things have changed since this type of land management was a thing. Notably people have houses now which they prefer not to be burned down.
Finally:
This is confirmation bias. What happened to the plant species that were vulnerable to fire?
Yes Indigenous land stewardship practices altered the environment and undoubtedly some species were losers and were extirpated. However at a landscape scale, over thousands and thousands of years, the ecology adapted and is most healthy when these practices are applied.
Indigenous peoples see themselves as part of the land not above, so the practices are reciprocal, not exploitative. In this way they achieved sustainability and endured for thousands and thousands of years, whereas colonizers trying to force practices used in Europe have destroyed the ecology in a few hundred years.
Calling Indigenous lands wilderness is incorrect, lands were managed. It's just harder to justify stealing land when you admit that. Same as calling Indigenous peoples hunter gathers when they had sophisticated agricultural practices.
There are several techniques which control traditional burning temperature. They're done at a time of year when the air and soil are only slightly damp, to produce the best temperature, and the conditions on the day are assessed, including the health of the soil. An experienced Elder can tell how hot a fire will burn just from holding a clump of dirt. That's because of the advanced science which these cultures have honed over thousands of years. The burning is also done in a mosaic pattern, a little piece at a time, so the geographical size is controlled and any changes in conditions can be responded to. And before the full burn begins, Elders will make some smoke to warn the animals that a burn is coming. Insects will climb to the treetops, because evolution has taught them it's safe up there.
Oh gee, wow.. burn off when it's not summer. Amazing science. We better tell these university dumb dumbs.
I'm curious how they managed to achieve a mosaic pattern with no fire breaks or water or anything really to control where the fire burns.
If you believe any of that I can't help you mate.
Tough shit, don't build houses in disaster zones. (Flood plains, slide zones, Florida, dry pine forests)
Literally not what that means. Plants, entire ecosystems, evolved to depend on a rhythm of burns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte
LOL.
Plenty of houses in Australia have been burned which are not in "disaster" zones. Every property has a bushfire rating which determines required mitigation. Its a genuine risk in many suburbs.
Also, that's exactly what confirmation bias means. In making an assertion that ecosystems evolved to depend on regular burning, you're ignoring all the species which became extinct in prehistory due to regular burning.
The type of land managment practices in use in 18th century Australia are about as useful as the farming practices from that era.
Any suggestion that we should disregard the last 100 years of land management science, in favor if lighting up the nearest bush every other month, is just as absurd as it sounds.
I think you mean survivor bias, not confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is when you only remember things that reinforce the way you think or believe, like only remembering the bad things that happen to you on Mondays and not the good or the bad on other days. I don't know what fallacy you think you're invoking but it's not that one.
If you want to maintain the belief that Aboriginals are magical managers of the natural environment, you have to forget all of the species that disappeared when they arrived.
After 60,000 years of man-made fires, the only species left are those which were resistant, or could adapt. To consider those remaining species and conclude that native bushland benefits from regular fire is the textbook definition of a cognitive bias, because you have to disregard all the species which no longer exist.
That's how evolution works. That part of it is called natural selection.
That's not an accurate description of Indigenous fire science at all. I recommend learning the science before you try to critique it. But you are right that European primitives have only been studying the ecosystem for 100 years. They've been messing stuff up for 1/600 of the time Aboriginal scientists have been collecting measurements.
Its not "natural selection" when people are lighting fires and destroying the native flora and fauna.
Indigenous fire "science" is just like natural "medicine" - any that can withstand scrutiny is just "fire science".
One of us sure doesnt.
It is when they've been doing it for 65,000 years
"I read a bunch of sarcastic posts and I am gullible."
Once again, the curse of /~~r~~ c/Funny rears its ugly head.
The R in your r/ being crossed out confused the hell out of me. I was trying to work out what language that letter came from
My faith in humanity is not high enough for me to agree with you.
I used to leave reviews on bus stops while waiting. Like “This one has a bench! A+!“ or “homeless guy shitting here, do not recommend”
Definitely trolling.
A big chunk of the people on this platform have no concept of satire.
i'll go with fantastic morons please