Not just about safety but also intensity. Super-hot fires sterilize the soil, and total-destruction fires destabilize hillsides & dramatically change microclimate (no shade -> hot & dry). Both can delay recolonization decades or centuries.
Why does it seem like this is presented as a bad take? What's wrong with ecological changes and corrections taking centuries, or longer?
Too often I see environmental advocates wringing their hands over changes which absent humanity would be just a chance for other subsystems to adapt or related ecology to evolve while the initial system rebuilds itself.
Just because humanity "depends" upon the later results or effects of these processes (or just because humanity caused them) doesn't mean any anything, really.
Consider from the environment's perspective:
This, too, shall pass.
There's a climate science "gotcha" which is that the Earth's average temperature has been much higher in the past than it is now. No one disputes this. The problem is not so much the absolute level as the rate of change, which gives less time for everything to adapt.
Hearing that very small group of people (or researchers and political advocates funded by that very small group of people) paint a quaint picture of humans as one tiny part of Gaia might make some people uncomfortable.
At a personal level, the extinction of the giant sequoias or the spotted owls doesn’t seem like a very desirable outcome.
It’s natural to want to stop it, same as someone wanting to not have their wallet stolen, or a house they love destroyed and replaced with an apartment complex.
if you value things, then you have wishes and desires. if you consider people to be responsible for choices, you can assign value to actions and consequences.
some people don’t like devastation of the natural environment. if you understand yourself as part of the world, it feels a lot like self-harm.