There's a firefighting documentary on Netflix and it's shocking how manual and inefficient the firefighting process seems.
A dozen guys load up in a helicopter and drop in next to a brush fire with rakes and shovels and start digging a trench. That's the grand plan, digging a barrier by hand with hand tools.
Or, pay thousands to fly and operate firefighting planes that sometimes miss the target and other times the fire is so huge their payload doesn't make a dent.
And the price tag for the California fire season runs in the billions. Seems like an area ripe for disruption.
The problem is that traditional heavy equipment takes too long to get into position due to its bulk and weight. Basically, someone needs to make a backhoe that is better than 4-20 people with Pulaskis. In addition, it would need to take up less room, weight less, and cost less than the number of people it replaces.
There are a bunch of other things that can help control fires, but most of them are not very flashy and some run into problems of NIMBYs torpedoing the control measure.
Some measures that can help:
1. Mandate under eave water sprayers in higher risk areas (a fair amount of houses destroyed are caused by embers from main fire). This is probably the easiest to disrupt.
2. Do more controlled burns (especially in areas that have not burned in decades. Huge NIMBY objection to this as they claim it will damage property values or harm children)
3. Require more fire-resistant vegetation or ground cover around residential areas (bare ground is bad as well as lots of trees and large bushes)
4. Require more fire resistant building materials and techniques for roofs, decks, outdoor furniture, etc.
Off topic, but how do i put things in list format in an HN comment? If there is a guide feel free to link. You make some excellent points. One of your points (3) could be accomplished in a small way by people just going Johnny Appleseed 2.0 and seeding fire prone areas with the proper vegetation without asking.
It is an area ripe for disruption, but probably not in the way you thought of.
We already know that we need to do more and better controlled burns to manage the fuel sources. However the current funding situation more or less forces the Forest Service to spend most of its funding on active fire fighting instead of controlled burns (ie, they just need more money).
Other posts covered the reasons for the use of manual labor pretty well. Anecdotally, when i was in Central America i was astounded at how often they used human labor for jobs like carving stone steps, digging holes, or carrying things. The equipment was available, but it was cheaper to hire 20 dudes to lug stuff around v. renting a truck. This may be a factor. Slightly off topic, but your comment reminded me how we have yet to find a technical workaround for infantry when it comes to invasion and occupation.
The pyrolysis byproducts were still quite toxic, but they were very effective at putting out fires since they chemically inhibit the oxidation reaction.
A dozen guys load up in a helicopter and drop in next to a brush fire with rakes and shovels and start digging a trench. That's the grand plan, digging a barrier by hand with hand tools.
Or, pay thousands to fly and operate firefighting planes that sometimes miss the target and other times the fire is so huge their payload doesn't make a dent.
And the price tag for the California fire season runs in the billions. Seems like an area ripe for disruption.