yeah forests did fine with natural burns, but then we started living there. so we obviously tried to prevent all fires to keep our communities from burning, but without semi regular burns allowed to occur naturally, that lets dead wood build up and become much worse when it does light off. so then we had to introduce controlled burns to maintain the natural fire systems as best as possible. it's not the perfect solution but it's the best outside of just not settling people on land. our lives are incompatible.
definitely california was originally a gold boom but i think there's a strong influence of trans pacific trade sites and comfortable climate that has led to the silicon valley boom, modern growth. LA really grew after the car, not from gold. of course it's not an ideal place either, not enough water, but its very comfortable and i definitely feel the draw, it's nice out there.
the fresh water trade is pretty wild. limited resources.
anyway i support doing something, i am not sure the best something, but i think not having kids is a good move (oops) and living modestly helps, but the personal effects on humanity's environmental burden can only go so far, there's a lot of room for a new paradigm where technology and innovation are given economic incentives through regulation and taxation of emissions. i believe it could be a big win, both for the environment but also longterm for the economy and for shifting trade back to the US, allowing people to drive towards advancement not through ever cheapening manufacturing but being able to outperform competitors with superior practice