Firemen, Firewomen and Firefighting
Part I
I had a chat with ChatGPT about firefighting.
It was brought on by a response I got this morning about a female firefighter.
My response:
Look: I told you my patience is shot. I’m not giving an inch on this.
Women cannot be firefighters. Period. We lack the physical strength. Firefighters wear heavy gear, have to lug heavy equipment, under conditions of unbelievable stress. Think combat, only your enemy is Mother Nature, against which, you do not win, ever. You can’t out-think her, and you can’t out-fight her. You can only alleviate or mitigate.
But let’s say that there is that one in a million woman who is actually big enough, fit enough, and aggressive enough to be a firefighter, with no relaxation of standards. She will destroy the team. The mere presence of a female in a team, not on a team, in a team, destroys the impersonal but intense camaraderie that characterizes a team.
Aliyah Boston of the Indiana Fever. 6’5”, 220 pounds:
Aryna Sabalenka, 6’0”, 174 pounds:
There are plenty of tall, powerful, athletic women. Madison Keys’ (5’10”, 146 listed but I think she’s heavier) groundstrokes were the fastest of either gender:
When a woman is that physically gifted, she’ll become a pro athlete, not a firefighter. (Who competes against other women, as Martina Navratilova tirelessly points out.)
But beyond that, even more important…
Team bonds are unique. I’m not going to elaborate about them here, just read Lionel Tiger’s neglected but oft-referred to classic, Men in Groups.1
All this said, the note did stimulate some thoughts about the difference between fighting forest fires and urban fires. Every now and then you read about some woman who is a firefighter in a remote area, fighting forest fires, so I wondered about that, and with that in mind, here is my chat with ChatGPT, lightly edited. I’m in italics.
I'm not an expert on firefighting, but it strikes me that fighting a forest fire, while quite hazardous, is not in the same league as fighting a fire in a dense city like London or NYC. In a forest you don't have to climb up stairs and rescue people. In a forest fire (assuming there are no people), the "enemy" is space, not density. Am I right?
You're absolutely on to something. Fighting forest fires and fighting urban fires are fundamentally different in terms of challenges, risks, and strategies. Here's a breakdown to clarify the distinctions and support your thinking:
Fighting Forest Fires:
The Enemy is Space: As you said, the primary challenge in a forest fire is containing a massive, sprawling fire across unpredictable terrain. Firefighters often face miles of rugged wilderness, strong winds, and rapidly shifting fire lines.
Fewer Immediate Rescues: In most cases, forest fires don't involve rescuing people trapped in buildings, though evacuating residents from nearby areas can be critical.
Resource Management: Forest firefighting relies heavily on creating firebreaks, controlling fuel (vegetation), and using aircraft to drop water or retardants. It's about large-scale containment rather than putting out flames up close.
Hazards: The risks include extreme heat, smoke inhalation, unpredictable fire behavior (like fire tornadoes), and long exposure to the elements. The lack of roads and access can complicate operations.
Fighting Urban Fires:
The Enemy is Density: Urban fires involve close-packed buildings, flammable materials, and complex infrastructure (gas lines, electrical systems) that can exacerbate the situation.
Life-Saving Priority: The top priority is often rescuing people trapped in buildings. This requires firefighters to enter burning structures, climb stairs, and navigate smoke-filled spaces—often without knowing the layout.
Speed is Key: Urban fires can spread rapidly from building to building, especially in older neighborhoods or densely populated areas like NYC or London.
Hazards: The risks are intense: collapsing structures, backdrafts, exposure to toxic fumes from synthetic materials, and high-rise challenges (like elevators being out of service or having to pump water hundreds of feet upward).
Key Differences:
Scope vs. Focus: Forest fires are vast in scale but often less focused on individual human lives. Urban fires are more concentrated but demand precise, immediate action to save lives and limit damage.
Access and Terrain: Forest firefighters contend with remote, uneven terrain; urban firefighters have better access but deal with confined spaces and vertical challenges.
Strategy and Equipment: Forest firefighting often uses bulldozers, helicopters, and long-term containment strategies. Urban firefighting relies on ladders, hoses, and rapid deployment.
In Short:
You're right that the "enemy" in forest fires is space and scale, while in urban fires, it's density and immediacy. Forest firefighting is about controlling nature, while urban firefighting is about saving lives and infrastructure in tightly packed environments. Both are incredibly hazardous, but the risks and tactics are very different.
"controlling nature" - which you really can't do.
You’re absolutely right—“controlling nature” is a bit of a misnomer. It’s more about managing the fire’s behavior rather than truly controlling it. Firefighters aim to redirect, contain, or slow down a wildfire, but ultimately, nature calls the shots. The wind shifts, fuel loads, humidity, and even the topography play enormous roles in how a wildfire behaves, often rendering human efforts reactive rather than decisive.
A better way to phrase it might be that forest firefighters are trying to work with nature’s forces to minimize damage, but as you say, it’s not about outright control. The sheer scale and unpredictability of wildfires make "control" feel like an illusion. What do you think of that adjustment?
Also: at the end of the day, letting a forest fire burn itself out isn't a tragedy. Sorry for the animals2, but… it’s part of the cycle of life.
Exactly! Letting a forest fire burn itself out can even be beneficial in some contexts, as many ecosystems have evolved to depend on fire as part of their natural cycle. Fires clear out underbrush, recycle nutrients into the soil, and make way for new growth. Some species, like certain pine trees, even rely on fire to release their seeds.
Of course, this assumes the fire isn’t threatening lives, homes, or critical infrastructure. But unlike urban fires, where the goal is absolute containment to avoid catastrophic loss, forest fires can sometimes be left to run their course when they’re in remote areas and don’t pose immediate risks.
It’s a perspective shift: a forest fire burning out is part of nature, not inherently a tragedy—unless human activity puts something irreplaceable in its path. Letting go of the idea that every fire is a "disaster" can help us manage resources and priorities better. Agree?
100%
Tomorrow, or whenever I can work up the energy, I’ll write something about the wokeification of the Fire Department of NYC. It’s bad.
I link to books and articles knowing that no one will read them, but I do it. Eleven piddling reviews!
If you didn’t cry when Bambi’s mother died, you’re a louse. But… that’s life in the forest.
Even if you cried when Bambi’s mother died, you will still laugh when you see Marv Newland’s classic 1969 CFB 2 minute short, ‘Bambi meets Godzilla.’ Available on the internet.