A general answer to this question, “protect the public,” only opens the door to endless subtleties of interpretation and subsequent arguments, about, for example, forms of government protection that go too far for society’s own good. In a democracy, these kinds of arguments belong in the public debate. But that debate is only as worthwhile as it is informed, and, ideally, based on a logical conceptual framework. For such a framework, a few points are worth noting:
- The more people who are using a particular finite resource, the more that resource, or the people using it, or both, needs to be managed. The more critical the resource is for survival, the more critical the management need. Different strategies, and perhaps different institutions, are needed for short-term and long-term management, as applicable to any particular resource.
- The world is growing more complex on a daily basis, from environmental stresses, economic interdependencies, the growing juxtaposition of people with different religious orientations, etc. in the same areas. In the meantime, our social, economic, and infrastructure systems have less resiliency as we both expand and move into increasingly marginal territories.
- Given the above circumstances, some things that we did not necessarily need protection against a decade or so ago are now serious threats. Even the weather has become more extreme.
- The constituent base for long-term survival is not as obvious as one might assume it must be. Households with children should care about this, but are often focused on competing for immediate needs. Most U.S. households are childless. Corporations in theory live forever, but they are focused on short-term reporting of profits, growth, etc. Politicians are focused on the next election cycle a few years hence.
At a minimum, don’t we want government to keep us aware of the status of conditions that 1) potentially increase our wellbeing, and 2) threaten our survival, whether short-term or long-term? In practice, for the latter, this would mean that the government assembles the best possible set of facts about possible threats, then keeps us informed about the status of threats, the types and levels of risk we face under any given set of conditions (including “normal” conditions), why we should be willing to accept or reject that risk (and some form of risk is part of almost any human endeavor), and mitigating or defensive actions we should either take or be prepared to take, as individuals or the government or some other party. At the personal level, such actions might involve participating in a disaster-preparedness program, for example.
In other words, we should not be limited to just knowing the forest fire danger level. Why is it at that level (or any other level), What do any of the level designations actually mena, what should we be doing about dangerously high levels to remediate conditions, prepare for the inevitability of fires, etc.? This kind of focus would contrast starkly with the role that governments seem to prefer – brokering competing interests that represent different sides of a debate about whether something poses a serious threat, is an acceptable risk, or is actually good for us.