Look, I get the idea. Lawns are bad. But, the argument is a stupid one. Just because things haven’t changed in a few centuries doesn’t mean they necessarily should change. Beds are essentially the same design as hundreds of years ago because that design works. Why are lawns necessarily different than beds?
Lawns were easily maintained by the livestock that simply ate the grass. What we are doing now is a facimile of that by wasting energy to pretend sheep live nearby.
Do you have livestock? By all means have a lawn, it makes sense!
I don’t care about lawns, what I care about is the bad argument claiming that just because things were done a certain way 300 years ago means that they’re necessarily bad.
Beds don’t have an adverse effect on our ecosystem like lawns do
Also beds back then were made of straw and rope, maybe feathers if you were rich. Nowadays they’re made of a precision engineered combination of different types of foam and springs, all topped with self-cooling materials, placed on bases that can detect if you’re snoring and automatically adjust the mattress’s angle and softness to get you to stop. Beds are way fucking better than they were centuries ago. Yards are still useless wastes of space.
Mattresses, maybe. Beds were beds. The basic design of beds hasn’t changed.
The point is that some things haven’t changed in centuries because they do the job just fine. So, the argument that “this is the way it was 300 years ago, therefore it’s bad” is a shitty argument.
The basic design of lawns doesn’t need to change: a relatively cleared area around a house. The exact composition of the lawn can change, though. Why does it need to just be some genetically modified grass that provides nothing? Let natural grasses, clover, and flowers take over.
I’m pretty convinced HOAs are causing firefly extinction (among others). Better spray your lawn, i see a dandelion. Fire up the single-stroke leaf blower to push that one leaf out to the end of your driveway for the next 20 minutes.
I’m not really interested in lawns, just the bad argument that was used to claim that something being in use 300 years ago means that it’s necessarily out of date and needs to be replaced.
Ok but lawns have always been bad. Their whole original purpose was so rich people could flex their ability to leave some of their land useless. The whole point was for lawns to be useless. So like, the argument of “this is the way it was 300 years ago therefore it’s bad” is actually valid in this case. They were useless then, and they’re still useless now.
Yeah you keep saying that, but that’s not really the argument being made. If you’d actually read all the text, you’d find the argument being made is that lawns are no longer environmentally sustainable, which is just true.
Just because something was done 300 years ago doesn’t mean it’s ok to do now. And acknowledging that isn’t saying that things that are old are necessarily bad. It’s just recognizing that things change.
Are you still dressed like this?
Then why does your bed still look like this?
Look, I get the idea. Lawns are bad. But, the argument is a stupid one. Just because things haven’t changed in a few centuries doesn’t mean they necessarily should change. Beds are essentially the same design as hundreds of years ago because that design works. Why are lawns necessarily different than beds?
Lawns were easily maintained by the livestock that simply ate the grass. What we are doing now is a facimile of that by wasting energy to pretend sheep live nearby.
Do you have livestock? By all means have a lawn, it makes sense!
I don’t care about lawns, what I care about is the bad argument claiming that just because things were done a certain way 300 years ago means that they’re necessarily bad.
Depends on the livestock. Some are top grazers like cows and other eat all the way to the base like sheep (this one can kill the grass)
Beds don’t have an adverse effect on our ecosystem like lawns do
Also beds back then were made of straw and rope, maybe feathers if you were rich. Nowadays they’re made of a precision engineered combination of different types of foam and springs, all topped with self-cooling materials, placed on bases that can detect if you’re snoring and automatically adjust the mattress’s angle and softness to get you to stop. Beds are way fucking better than they were centuries ago. Yards are still useless wastes of space.
Mattresses, maybe. Beds were beds. The basic design of beds hasn’t changed.
The point is that some things haven’t changed in centuries because they do the job just fine. So, the argument that “this is the way it was 300 years ago, therefore it’s bad” is a shitty argument.
The basic design of lawns doesn’t need to change: a relatively cleared area around a house. The exact composition of the lawn can change, though. Why does it need to just be some genetically modified grass that provides nothing? Let natural grasses, clover, and flowers take over.
I’m pretty convinced HOAs are causing firefly extinction (among others). Better spray your lawn, i see a dandelion. Fire up the single-stroke leaf blower to push that one leaf out to the end of your driveway for the next 20 minutes.
I’m not really interested in lawns, just the bad argument that was used to claim that something being in use 300 years ago means that it’s necessarily out of date and needs to be replaced.
The point is things need to change when they no longer do the job just fine.
Then say that, instead of saying “do you dress like this?”
Ok but lawns have always been bad. Their whole original purpose was so rich people could flex their ability to leave some of their land useless. The whole point was for lawns to be useless. So like, the argument of “this is the way it was 300 years ago therefore it’s bad” is actually valid in this case. They were useless then, and they’re still useless now.
I don’t care about lawns, I care about the bad argument claiming that if things were done a certain way 300 years ago, they’re necessarily bad.
Yeah you keep saying that, but that’s not really the argument being made. If you’d actually read all the text, you’d find the argument being made is that lawns are no longer environmentally sustainable, which is just true.
Just because something was done 300 years ago doesn’t mean it’s ok to do now. And acknowledging that isn’t saying that things that are old are necessarily bad. It’s just recognizing that things change.
That’s what’s in the tiny text at the bottom, but the actual argument as presented is “it’s the way things were done in the past, so it’s bad”.
Mkay well now you’re just stubbornly refusing to see reality lol. I hope you don’t do this with every piece of media you see
I’m seeing reality, you’re seeing what you want to see.