Most forests need to burn periodically, if not for the trees, then for all the plants that take over until the forest reestablishes itself.
Towns and settlements need to have a solid firebreak. Then start controlled burns from the town. Done right, there should be basically zero risk.
Going off on a little bit of a philosophical tangent here, but I think a problem a lot of people have is the deeper implications of what accepting this idea might lead us to conclude about other parts of life.
If periodic death and destruction are critical part of maintaining a healthy ecosystem in forests, then it stands to reason that the same might be true for humans. What if attempts to extend our lives, keep people with debilitating illness alive, or reduce warfare and violence are ultimately analogous to controlling and stopping all fire in a forest that needs it to stay healthy and fertile. And as a result, society accumulates more and more kindling over the decades, setting the stage for a devastating wildfire at some unknown point in the future that's orders of magnitude more destructive than it needed to be.
We're not plants dude.
More recently, peaceful times have also consistently lead to very unequal growth. And it's only great crises such as world wars which ultimately resulted in social stabilization and marked improvements in the conditions of the common person.
This is a myth. Mature forests rarely burn and mature forests (rainforest+taiga) include the majority of the current forests
We can accept it or keep doing it wrong, and craving for a miracle in the change climate problem. It will never happen if we keep burning the soil.
When forests burn too frequently what we have is the current situation with half of the megafauna extinct. Just because in the last 200 years we had some status quo does not mean that we shouldn't try to think better or that nature is not trying to return to the original state
Megafauna extinction correlates with humans entering given regions, and occured even in places without forest fires (e.g. wooly mammoths).
Yep, and they are very important for biodiversity, but those aren't:
1) Most of the forests in the planet (If I'm not wrong, mature forests occupy more area still, 11% of the emerged areas is taiga).
2) neither mature forests (in the sense of "close to ecosystem climax"). They are either transitional (If let alone, they evolve to the next step that is a higher state of complexity) or trapped in a fire loop.
3) Fire loop that is not natural. We can't claim that something is naturally burn when in a 90% of the cases the culprit is the man.
Therefore claiming that "most of the forests need to be burnt regularly as good management practices" is not correct.
Eucalyptus and sequoia are both fire adapted trees.
Just because a plant has adapted to survive fire doesn't mean it needs fire.