Camping w/o fire is not the end of the world.
For a few days I debated whether I should respond or not, but finally, I decided to go ahead and bite the bullet. I practice LNT, and I believe that LNT also means discussing such topics when not in the woods.
The best fire, is no fire at all.
I feel that fires are sentimental-feel-good-warm-fuzzy things that are no longer needed in the backcountry, unless under very special circumstances (emergencies).
Fire rings litter the woods; not only do popular tenting spots usually have more than one, but I've stumbled into my fair share of old rings while bushwacking. They often are magnets for trash, usually the non-burnable variety. Having fires helps create to human browse lines, as people forage on the trees for wood to burn.
The site of an established fire ring calls for another fire. Future fires will collect more trash, and will also contribute to larger and larger human browse lines, especially around popular spots. How many tenting sites and B.C. sites have browse lines that extend for hundreds of yards, the trees devoid of all branches up to the reach of a human?
Sure, we can do things that minimize the impact of fires, like maintaining only one firepit per campsite (for those that insist), and using wood already fallen off the trees, amongst many others. But we can do a lot more!
Finally, and most importantly: Having a fire only encourages and habituates others--whether it be your friends, your children, or others camping around you-- to have a fire in the future. Fire will beget fire.
In the end, the best way to minimize a fire, is to say, "No, Thank you," and explain your position. You will leave an impression, and challenge others to think about their impact in the woods.