|
Fire!!!!!!!!!!! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
I am really interested in investigating the problem of Forest Fire Control from a controls engineering point of view. Maybe I will work on it some day when I gain sufficient mastery over controls theory. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this problem will lend itself to a mathematical solution. A co-ordinated effort of dousing the fire from land and air-based fire fighting machines at critically identified points in the terrain should ensure a complete control and eventual termination of fires. It's not easy ofcourse. But worth giving a shot especially since such fires cause enormous damage to life and property. |
Yup, that's pretty much the exact mentality I'm going to school to fight.  |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| What mentality do you wish to fight ? |
|
|
| noikeee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ted Promo
Yeah, but apparently your dad would be without a job if there weren't any :p |
he has 2 jobs
PWNED!! |
|
|
| RJT |
Well the first I'd like to fight is the mentality the seems disposed to oversimplify issues that are far more complicated than they care to acknowledge, and that includes the mentality of "controlling" nature.
And no place is free of disaster - but I do believe there are many places people simply aren't meant to live, and our continuing intrusion into those areas seems to only be met with surprise when things don't go how we'd planned.
Further, to assume you can distill control of nature down to a math problem seems incredibly arrogant. |
|
|
| stren |
| don't fight mentality, fight fire ! |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Well the first I'd like to fight is the mentality the seems disposed to oversimplify issues that are far more complicated than they care to acknowledge, and that includes the mentality of "controlling" nature.
Further, to assume you can distill control of nature down to a math problem seems incredibly arrogant. |
Not really. All physical sciences attempt to distill nature down to math problems. But this is a wrong mentality to begin with. These are not your regular textbook problems with answers supplied in the solution manual. Using math to describe nature is not "oversimplifying" the issue or being arrogant. Math is the language to describe the behavior of nature. There is no way around it. If the big bang can be written down in terms of a set of equations, I think it's safe to assume that many more natural phenomena can also be described accurately by math.
Having said that, all engineering problems are an attempt to control nature in their own ways. All engineering achievements are artificial. Once you have an understanding of the nature written down in terms of equations, you go about manipulating them and making nature do what you want to do. There is nothing new in it. As our understanding of nature increases, we will attempt to control even more complex natural problems. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Not sound like too self-righteous an environmental , but if people didn't live so close to areas in which natural phenomena like wildfires are meant to occur, this wouldn't be such a problem. |
+0.5
I live in a place where wildfires occur a lot. As a matter of fact, these fires are necessary, being part of some messed up cycle the local plants go through. The easiest way I know to wind up a biology student is to complain about these fires, actually :p
I remember I saw my first blazing hell this August (which fortunately happened in the country, not in a city), and I just stared in awe. It was a bright night, lit by the flames crossing the mountains. As I drove by, I felt like I was entering a giant land of flaming damnation and marshmallows.
Unfortunately, I had no marshmallows :( |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Not really. All physical sciences attempt to distill nature down to math problems. But this is a wrong mentality to begin with. These are not your regular textbook problems with answers supplied in the solution manual. Using math to describe nature is not "oversimplifying" the issue or being arrogant. Math is the language to describe the behavior of nature. There is no way around it. If the big bang can be written down in terms of a set of equations, I think it's safe to assume that many more natural phenomena can also be described accurately by math.
Having said that, all engineering problems are an attempt to control nature in their own ways. All engineering achievements are artificial. Once you have an understanding of the nature written down in terms of equations, you go about manipulating them and making nature do what you want to do. There is nothing new in it. As our understanding of nature increases, we will attempt to control even more complex natural problems. |
Then your previous post confused me in the sense that it appeared you were positing the possibility of "solving" the solution of wildfires via careful calculations.
I don't think using math to describe nature is arrogant, but rather assuming that it will provide answers to what we view as environmental "problems" (as opposed to just being natural phenomena) is.
I do, however, think the mentality of control exhibited by this statement:
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
As our understanding of nature increases, we will attempt to control even more complex natural problems. |
...is in disagreement with how I feel we should deal with the environment. I am not of the persuasion that a "management" ethic is all that good for the general well being of ecosystems, but that's an argument for another day. |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| What's wrong with the lawns in Arizona? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| You all should just read Dune and STFU. |
|
|
|
|
