Capitalism started when some no-nobles started having more power than (some) nobles. Meaning that the power balance shifted from nobles to capitalists. Which happened around (because of) the industrial revolution.
All of these undoubtedly existed before the industrial revolution: war, monoculture farming, clear cutting forests, building on floodplains, development that destroys habitats.
These were impossible before the industrial revolution for technological reasons: space tourism, deep sea mining.
This is impossible without capitalism for semantic reasons: corporations bulldozing ecosystems for endless "growth". Before capitalism, it wasn't corporations, and it wasn't done with a bulldozer. But kingdoms did "bulldoze" ecosystems. And communist countries did bulldoze ecosystems too.
Golf, lawns: these are harder to prove and I don't care enough to do the research. Golf probably couldn't be done before industrial revolution, but maybe a primitive version of golf could be played.
So at most, the tweet might be right in the best of cases about golf and lawns. Which would make for a much more boring tweet.
the inherent problem with capitalism is that people strive for something. the moment that you want your situation to be B instead of A, you are unhappy (with A). that is how ambition inherently creates unhappiness. there is nothing you can do about it. only way to solve this would be to never strive for anything, but that's not gonna happen for the vast majority of people.
and the same also goes for larger macroeconomic situations. if you want to have a nice boat, you gotta chop down some trees for wood. so you're sacrificing a part of the peace of the landscape, for your ambitions. even if it's the ambition of a whole country. you're still sacrificing something.
Lawns are fine. Having lawns and nothing else is a problem. Filling your lawn with chemicals is a problem. Most people I know who have lawns don't do that. They also have rich borders and beds and planters and wild areas. I post a different pic everyday here of bugs I find in my garden; the grass and clover and soil itself is full of life. Most people need an open space to play or entertain or whatever, and a lawn - though not a wildflower meadow - beats decking or concrete.
I don't think your first statement is true. Most people I know or places I've lived in or been have a mixed, livedāin garden where the lawn is one component of a wider ecosystem. Most don't look like the green on a golf course.
A lawn with clover, moss, daisies, microāwild patches, little plants I can't even name that drift in on the wind, and healthy soil full of ants and worms and beetles and spiders and things I need to photograph and identify is not a monoculture. Itās a low meadow kept short that hosts plenty of life.
Go take a look in any real garden or lawn for 10 minutes. You'll find life.
this is just based off of info iāve read on the internet so i canāt say iāve tested it myself but most āniceā lawns iāve seen with people iāve actually talked with do at least weekly watering outside of normal rainfall
i know for a fact none of the lawns here are native because this area used to be a swamp
as to the mono culture all the lawns here are even, maybe two types of grass sometimes
I water my lawn once or twice a week when it's dry. Nothing crazy, just a misting for 10-15 mins. I don't think it's wasting water to help an ecosystem blossom. The vast majority of grass seed we see in the UK would be native grasses. Mine is mixed hardy horse paddock grass. Grows like wildfire, and the bugs love it.
I still think even monoculture grass lawn is a good middle ground between nothing living at all and a wildflower meadow or the like. Not everyone cares about the plants around them, but grass and soil beats concrete or bare earth.
Monoculture lawns create massive gaps for various bugs that canāt transverse those gaps to eat, hide, breed, lay eggs/reproduce, hibernate for winter - and that impacts all the other species up and down the chain, from birds to microbial life. Mono culture lawns also limit the fungal life, which limits microbial life. Both those being limited along with introducing gaps where there once were highways for life means species dwindle, and that causes other species of plants and animals to dwindle. Itās a fucking massacre of life just to be āfineā. That hardly seems reasonable and fine to me.
As I said, a monoculture lawn is better than concrete or bare earth. I'm by no means a fan. I agree with you that they're shit, but most I know simply aren't that at all. They're healthy and host a variety of life.
They really aren't. Even without the chemicals, they're still incredibly water-hungry and require intensive irrigation in most climates. And even if you have some garden beds around the edges, the lawn itself is still mostly an ecological dead zone when it comes to biodiversity and habitat. Not to mention that it also requires a lot of work (often assisted by fossil-fuel-powered machinery) to maintain.
And all just for aesthetics? Or -- at most -- used as a dog bathroom? Lawns are still incredibly wasteful, even in the most ideal circumstances.
Do people... water lawns? Well obviously don't grow them there then. You leave a patch of ground completely alone around here and much of what ends up growing there is still various types of grass, some of which we also use in our lawn seed mixes.
And what's a natural alternative that's nice to walk on barefoot in the summer?
Do peopleā¦ water lawns? Well obviously donāt grow them there then. You leave a patch of ground completely alone around here and much of what ends up growing there is still various types of grass, some of which we also use in our lawn seed mixes.
For the 10% of places where something lawn-like just grows naturally, without extra watering and extra work, sure. But for the other 90% of lawns...
And whatās a natural alternative thatās nice to walk on barefoot in the summer?
I dunno. Maybe walking barefoot in the summer isn't that important?
For the 10% of places where something lawn-like just grows naturally, without extra watering and extra work, sure. But for the other 90% of lawnsā¦
It's much more than 10% of the places where lawn is grown. Much of mainland Europe has native grasses used for lawns everywhere.
I dunno. Maybe walking barefoot in the summer isnāt that important?
Neither are most things, but life is about enjoying the little things, and that's a very enjoyable one for some people. And it's free (well at least if you're privileged or cursed enough to have a detached home with a garden, I grew up in such a house and hey, a few decades later the same lawn is still going strong unlike the rest of the house, it's been watered on average maybe 5 times a decade if not less).
This hatred of lawns seems like yet another super America-specific thing, as North America has a lot of dry areas I guess. You know that super controversial Kentucky bluegrass that's not native and all the anti-lawn folk hate? It's native to basically all of Europe, parts of Africa and parts of Asia. Most meadows here have tons of that, along with clover which is also in some lawn mixes (and great for the bees, who are also not invasive here), dandelions which nobody plants on their lawns, but are unavoidable anyway, etc. Your average lawn is basically a mix of many of the same plants that would naturally occur in a meadow, but trimmed short.
A patch left alone will become grasses again because biodiversity in the area has been eliminated and the non native grasses will out-compete native plants.
To return an area to nature requires considerable effort to ensure natives can reestablish in an area and keep invasives out.
As for walking barefoot, use paths or don't go barefoot. Your desire to walk barefoot does not trump the need for a healthy ecosystem.
Strong disagree for all aforesaid reasons. I'd say we're likely talking about different types of lawns when it comes down to it. Most lawns I know are a damp green rectangle that grows whether you want it to or not. Itās not an ecological villain. Itās just grass and 'weeds'.And culturally, British gardens have always mixed lawns with borders, hedges, trees, and beds. I've no doubt perfect lawns are sterile and water hungry but that's the extreme, and most aren't that. It's not aesthetics or a dog toilet. They're a space that people use. An outside room.
Yeah, I was prepared to completely agree with everything, but "lawns"? I have ~100mĀ² of grass where my child and dog are free to play within the boundaries. Is this capitalistic of me?
Monoculture farming is pretty much the only thing that's keeping billions upon billions from starvation and is pretty much the foundation of society.
There's also not that much wrong with it. You can absolutely do modern farming sustainably, it's just many don't. So, like all companies, farmers need to be forced to do the right thing.
Also, the Netherlands is basically a giant floodplane, and wetre all fine. It's not our fault other places have a skill issue.
Well, turns out that you can actually prepare for that, since we know it's coming. Upgrading the flood defenses started decades ago.
River floods are much more risky than sealevel rise, since Germany is lagging hugely with providing water retention for the rivers, and getting people to move out of the way is kinda complex in such a densely populated country.
While some of the feats of large scale agriculture seem impressive, the fossil fuel industry and those who sell the machinery seem to have inflated the numbers quite a lot.
Biodiverse landscapes grow a higher density of food with fewer pesticides and herbicides, and better soil health and water retention in the long term. The problem: you need those pesky people to maintain and harvest complex biodiverse systems, and they want livable wages! Best call them savages and uncivilized, drive them away in the name of progess and force everyone to use your machines, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery and fuels.
The problem: you need those pesky people to maintain and harvest complex biodiverse systems, and they want livable wages! Best call them savages and uncivilized, drive them away in the name of progess and force everyone to use your machines, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery and fuels.
Yeah, you can pretty much only do polyculture by hand, that's true. Are you suggesting we go back to unmechanized farming?
That would be super great for the planet, as it would cause the deaths by starvation of roughly 90% of the population, with the majority of the remaining humans forced into subsistence farming.
Neither corpses not subsistence farmers would cause much pollution. It might be somewhat hard to get volunteers for it though.
On the other hand, you can absolutely maintain a biodiverse landscape AND use mechanized monoculture fields. You just need to give nature time and space too, and that's something most farmers refuse to do. Which is why they should be forced to. I don't see why a factory gets banned from destroying biodiversity, but it's fine when farmers do it.
That's what a biodiverse landscape does? I didn't say unmechanized - but there's a difference between running giant machines over 200ha of the same and running a small tractor over a 2ha field. For the landscape it makes all the difference: having 2ha of one thing, then a hedge (that can contain edible fruits and berries), then something else, maybe have pasture with nut and chestnut on it, instead of just pasture.
Even in a small vegetable garden planting different plants together is so much easier. Higher plants give shade to smaller ones, aromatic ones protect pest-endangered ones ... recreating an actual ecosystem is the real deal.
Todays' rural areas are empty of people. They were bought out by those people who consented to being enslaved by the machine and fuel complex. The ones who were forced to leave had to become wage slaves in the cities. The ones who run the system now don't even want to touch the soil anymore! They just send a fucking drone to analyze where to dump how much of their chemicals. It's not a sustainable way of managing soil and water.
That's what a biodiverse landscape does? I didn't say unmechanized - but there's a difference between running giant machines over 200ha of the same and running a small tractor over a 2ha field. For the landscape it makes all the difference: having 2ha of one thing, then a hedge (that can contain edible fruits and berries), then something else, maybe have pasture with nut and chestnut on it, instead of just pasture.
I agree entirely, with pretty much everything you posted, but that's still monoculture. One crop per field, only much more ecologically friendly.
Thereās also not that much wrong with it. You can absolutely do modern farming sustainably, itās just many donāt.
uh, i like the example of the Kansas aquifer. It's basically a whole lot of water that has been stored deep underground for thousands of years.
It is slowly being depleted. The reason is the center-pivot irrigation farming that produces food, and depletes water. The water is basically non-renewable on human timescales.
It will probably take another 100 years at the current extraction rate until the aquifer is completely dried up. So, it's not sustainable.
And yet i'm fine with this. Because we probably won't be around in 100 years anymore to actually worry about the water supply in the midwest. human population will shrink and we'll be able to live within the renewable bounds by then. So, it is unsustainable (since we cannot do this forever), but also we won't need to do this forever. So it's fine enough.
But hey, we all are going hard right in the Benelux, so in a decade you guys will probably have to pay some private equity company a monthly subscription for them to hold the dikes closed for you lol. Or maybe they will just be so fucked and non-maintained through privatization that the will all fail anyway because it isn't profitable enough
I love space tourism! It paves the way for humans to travel far beyond this planet. Plus, in the early days, we might get to see a billionaire become a firework š¤
FYI, you'd have to launch the objects with about 10 km/s, at which point the velocity is high enough to ionize the air around you and create a plasma that basically eradicates everything except the most resistant heat shields.
also the air friction slows you down so you won't actually reach orbit
I love that argument where the AI addict asked if I hate AI so much, would I be able to complete my work without it. And apparently AI all shut down yesterday, and I didn't notice whatsoever because that's how much I use it.
I feel like one possible future where I go to jail is when a conversation goes like
Me: "That thing you're doing is unnecessary, bad for the environment, and bad for society."
Them: "But I like it"
Me, screaming "BUT I LIKE IT" while I punch them in the face over and over and over and over.
Liking something is not a trump card that supersedes all other concerns, and yet some galaxy brains act like it is. Much more respect for people who can admit "I don't care about the environment or society" out loud.
well put. and the worst part is the chuds who want to use public funds to pay for their habit - get FUCKED with that garbage, it's a racist, shitty waste of a 'sport'.
yeah and there's simply no other way to do flood abatement than building a fuckin golf course that requires water, fertilizer, gas to mow and is a historically racist as fuck sport, played by a tiny number of people, both in terms of population and asset utilization.
it's trump's favorite, that should tell you everything.
I absolutely believe my crotch rocket (of which I am a rider) and AR-15s (which I am a owner) are in the "But I like it" category. Will society be better without them? Absolutely.
I have had fun golfing through heath and forests with a minigolf club.
There is no need for the pesticide and fertilizer ridden, green wasteland that golf normally gets played on.
76 Comments
Nora@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 63 pts · 22h
You can just call it capitalism. Almost every problem with everything listed is actually a capitalism problem not something inherent to itself.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 21h
All of those existed way before capitalism. Except the ones that require technology more advanced than what they had available.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 14 pts · 19h
And several of them were/are issues in "non-capitalist" countries like the USSR and China. (Though, to be fair, those are still state capitalist.)
Rbnsft@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 19h
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 18h
Capitalism started when some no-nobles started having more power than (some) nobles. Meaning that the power balance shifted from nobles to capitalists. Which happened around (because of) the industrial revolution.
All of these undoubtedly existed before the industrial revolution: war, monoculture farming, clear cutting forests, building on floodplains, development that destroys habitats.
These were impossible before the industrial revolution for technological reasons: space tourism, deep sea mining.
This is impossible without capitalism for semantic reasons: corporations bulldozing ecosystems for endless "growth". Before capitalism, it wasn't corporations, and it wasn't done with a bulldozer. But kingdoms did "bulldoze" ecosystems. And communist countries did bulldoze ecosystems too.
Golf, lawns: these are harder to prove and I don't care enough to do the research. Golf probably couldn't be done before industrial revolution, but maybe a primitive version of golf could be played.
So at most, the tweet might be right in the best of cases about golf and lawns. Which would make for a much more boring tweet.
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 16h
That was a huge waste of effort trying to educate somebody that doesn't care to learn new things.
teslekova@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 7h
Wasn't a waste though, I read it. š
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 17h
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net · -1 pts · 15h
are you really that ignorant? Have you failed that much in basic, elementary education or are you just intentionally being stupid?
EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 21h
But.... But.... Number must go up!
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · -5 pts · 18h
the inherent problem with capitalism is that people strive for something. the moment that you want your situation to be B instead of A, you are unhappy (with A). that is how ambition inherently creates unhappiness. there is nothing you can do about it. only way to solve this would be to never strive for anything, but that's not gonna happen for the vast majority of people.
and the same also goes for larger macroeconomic situations. if you want to have a nice boat, you gotta chop down some trees for wood. so you're sacrificing a part of the peace of the landscape, for your ambitions. even if it's the ambition of a whole country. you're still sacrificing something.
mushroommunk@lemmy.today · 33 pts · 21h
Thank you! So many AI bros keep going "then why aren't you against xyz?" And I'm like, I am? I can actually have a consistent moral framework?
msage@programming.dev · 3 pts · 8h
But how do you have such a big context window???
inari@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 17h
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 24 pts · 22h
Lawns are fine. Having lawns and nothing else is a problem. Filling your lawn with chemicals is a problem. Most people I know who have lawns don't do that. They also have rich borders and beds and planters and wild areas. I post a different pic everyday here of bugs I find in my garden; the grass and clover and soil itself is full of life. Most people need an open space to play or entertain or whatever, and a lawn - though not a wildflower meadow - beats decking or concrete.
baines@lemmy.cafe · 19 pts · 21h
most lawns are monoculture, water hungry and non native
the native focused setups being the few alternatives but those are not really lawns
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 21h
I don't think your first statement is true. Most people I know or places I've lived in or been have a mixed, livedāin garden where the lawn is one component of a wider ecosystem. Most don't look like the green on a golf course.
A lawn with clover, moss, daisies, microāwild patches, little plants I can't even name that drift in on the wind, and healthy soil full of ants and worms and beetles and spiders and things I need to photograph and identify is not a monoculture. Itās a low meadow kept short that hosts plenty of life.
Go take a look in any real garden or lawn for 10 minutes. You'll find life.
baines@lemmy.cafe · 3 pts · 21h
this is just based off of info iāve read on the internet so i canāt say iāve tested it myself but most āniceā lawns iāve seen with people iāve actually talked with do at least weekly watering outside of normal rainfall
i know for a fact none of the lawns here are native because this area used to be a swamp
as to the mono culture all the lawns here are even, maybe two types of grass sometimes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866724002589
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 20h
I water my lawn once or twice a week when it's dry. Nothing crazy, just a misting for 10-15 mins. I don't think it's wasting water to help an ecosystem blossom. The vast majority of grass seed we see in the UK would be native grasses. Mine is mixed hardy horse paddock grass. Grows like wildfire, and the bugs love it.
I still think even monoculture grass lawn is a good middle ground between nothing living at all and a wildflower meadow or the like. Not everyone cares about the plants around them, but grass and soil beats concrete or bare earth.
BooBees@fedinsfw.app · 4 pts · 20h
Monoculture lawns create massive gaps for various bugs that canāt transverse those gaps to eat, hide, breed, lay eggs/reproduce, hibernate for winter - and that impacts all the other species up and down the chain, from birds to microbial life. Mono culture lawns also limit the fungal life, which limits microbial life. Both those being limited along with introducing gaps where there once were highways for life means species dwindle, and that causes other species of plants and animals to dwindle. Itās a fucking massacre of life just to be āfineā. That hardly seems reasonable and fine to me.
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 19h
As I said, a monoculture lawn is better than concrete or bare earth. I'm by no means a fan. I agree with you that they're shit, but most I know simply aren't that at all. They're healthy and host a variety of life.
greatwhitebuffalo41@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 14h
Obligatory !nolawns@slrpnk.net call out
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 6 pts · 19h
They really aren't. Even without the chemicals, they're still incredibly water-hungry and require intensive irrigation in most climates. And even if you have some garden beds around the edges, the lawn itself is still mostly an ecological dead zone when it comes to biodiversity and habitat. Not to mention that it also requires a lot of work (often assisted by fossil-fuel-powered machinery) to maintain.
And all just for aesthetics? Or -- at most -- used as a dog bathroom? Lawns are still incredibly wasteful, even in the most ideal circumstances.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 17h
Do people... water lawns? Well obviously don't grow them there then. You leave a patch of ground completely alone around here and much of what ends up growing there is still various types of grass, some of which we also use in our lawn seed mixes.
And what's a natural alternative that's nice to walk on barefoot in the summer?
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 1 pts · 16h
For the 10% of places where something lawn-like just grows naturally, without extra watering and extra work, sure. But for the other 90% of lawns...
I dunno. Maybe walking barefoot in the summer isn't that important?
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 15h
It's much more than 10% of the places where lawn is grown. Much of mainland Europe has native grasses used for lawns everywhere.
Neither are most things, but life is about enjoying the little things, and that's a very enjoyable one for some people. And it's free (well at least if you're privileged or cursed enough to have a detached home with a garden, I grew up in such a house and hey, a few decades later the same lawn is still going strong unlike the rest of the house, it's been watered on average maybe 5 times a decade if not less).
This hatred of lawns seems like yet another super America-specific thing, as North America has a lot of dry areas I guess. You know that super controversial Kentucky bluegrass that's not native and all the anti-lawn folk hate? It's native to basically all of Europe, parts of Africa and parts of Asia. Most meadows here have tons of that, along with clover which is also in some lawn mixes (and great for the bees, who are also not invasive here), dandelions which nobody plants on their lawns, but are unavoidable anyway, etc. Your average lawn is basically a mix of many of the same plants that would naturally occur in a meadow, but trimmed short.
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 15h
A patch left alone will become grasses again because biodiversity in the area has been eliminated and the non native grasses will out-compete native plants.
To return an area to nature requires considerable effort to ensure natives can reestablish in an area and keep invasives out.
As for walking barefoot, use paths or don't go barefoot. Your desire to walk barefoot does not trump the need for a healthy ecosystem.
Diddlydee@feddit.uk · -2 pts · 18h
Strong disagree for all aforesaid reasons. I'd say we're likely talking about different types of lawns when it comes down to it. Most lawns I know are a damp green rectangle that grows whether you want it to or not. Itās not an ecological villain. Itās just grass and 'weeds'.And culturally, British gardens have always mixed lawns with borders, hedges, trees, and beds. I've no doubt perfect lawns are sterile and water hungry but that's the extreme, and most aren't that. It's not aesthetics or a dog toilet. They're a space that people use. An outside room.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 4 pts · 20h
Edit: disregard this comment, I mistranslated lawn in to garden/backyard, i am not native english
NileMr. Green sweating in the cornerOddMinus1@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 8h
Yeah, I was prepared to completely agree with everything, but "lawns"? I have ~100mĀ² of grass where my child and dog are free to play within the boundaries. Is this capitalistic of me?
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 22h
Monoculture farming is pretty much the only thing that's keeping billions upon billions from starvation and is pretty much the foundation of society.
There's also not that much wrong with it. You can absolutely do modern farming sustainably, it's just many don't. So, like all companies, farmers need to be forced to do the right thing.
Also, the Netherlands is basically a giant floodplane, and wetre all fine. It's not our fault other places have a skill issue.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 7 pts · 19h
...so far.
What with climate change, larger storms, and sea level rise, though ... might get a bit more spicy in the times to come.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 19h
Well, turns out that you can actually prepare for that, since we know it's coming. Upgrading the flood defenses started decades ago.
River floods are much more risky than sealevel rise, since Germany is lagging hugely with providing water retention for the rivers, and getting people to move out of the way is kinda complex in such a densely populated country.
schmorpel@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 19h
While some of the feats of large scale agriculture seem impressive, the fossil fuel industry and those who sell the machinery seem to have inflated the numbers quite a lot.
Biodiverse landscapes grow a higher density of food with fewer pesticides and herbicides, and better soil health and water retention in the long term. The problem: you need those pesky people to maintain and harvest complex biodiverse systems, and they want livable wages! Best call them savages and uncivilized, drive them away in the name of progess and force everyone to use your machines, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery and fuels.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 19h
Yeah, you can pretty much only do polyculture by hand, that's true. Are you suggesting we go back to unmechanized farming?
That would be super great for the planet, as it would cause the deaths by starvation of roughly 90% of the population, with the majority of the remaining humans forced into subsistence farming.
Neither corpses not subsistence farmers would cause much pollution. It might be somewhat hard to get volunteers for it though.
On the other hand, you can absolutely maintain a biodiverse landscape AND use mechanized monoculture fields. You just need to give nature time and space too, and that's something most farmers refuse to do. Which is why they should be forced to. I don't see why a factory gets banned from destroying biodiversity, but it's fine when farmers do it.
schmorpel@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 18h
That's what a biodiverse landscape does? I didn't say unmechanized - but there's a difference between running giant machines over 200ha of the same and running a small tractor over a 2ha field. For the landscape it makes all the difference: having 2ha of one thing, then a hedge (that can contain edible fruits and berries), then something else, maybe have pasture with nut and chestnut on it, instead of just pasture.
Even in a small vegetable garden planting different plants together is so much easier. Higher plants give shade to smaller ones, aromatic ones protect pest-endangered ones ... recreating an actual ecosystem is the real deal.
Todays' rural areas are empty of people. They were bought out by those people who consented to being enslaved by the machine and fuel complex. The ones who were forced to leave had to become wage slaves in the cities. The ones who run the system now don't even want to touch the soil anymore! They just send a fucking drone to analyze where to dump how much of their chemicals. It's not a sustainable way of managing soil and water.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 18h
I agree entirely, with pretty much everything you posted, but that's still monoculture. One crop per field, only much more ecologically friendly.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 2 pts · 17h
uh, i like the example of the Kansas aquifer. It's basically a whole lot of water that has been stored deep underground for thousands of years.
It is slowly being depleted. The reason is the center-pivot irrigation farming that produces food, and depletes water. The water is basically non-renewable on human timescales.
It will probably take another 100 years at the current extraction rate until the aquifer is completely dried up. So, it's not sustainable.
And yet i'm fine with this. Because we probably won't be around in 100 years anymore to actually worry about the water supply in the midwest. human population will shrink and we'll be able to live within the renewable bounds by then. So, it is unsustainable (since we cannot do this forever), but also we won't need to do this forever. So it's fine enough.
JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 18h
But hey, we all are going hard right in the Benelux, so in a decade you guys will probably have to pay some private equity company a monthly subscription for them to hold the dikes closed for you lol. Or maybe they will just be so fucked and non-maintained through privatization that the will all fail anyway because it isn't profitable enough
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 18h
Yeah, but don't worry, maybe if we vote for the VVD even harder, it'll be different next time
MumboJumbo@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 16h
I love space tourism! It paves the way for humans to travel far beyond this planet. Plus, in the early days, we might get to see a billionaire become a firework š¤
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 19h
Call it data prison. Once they get your files, they don't give them out, hold them hostage for a fee you pay.
BeerStainedBunny@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 13h
Does this include golf in Wii Sports?
sudoer777@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 8h
Yes, even in Wii sports the golf courses contributed to global warming, that's why we have storm island
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3h
Yes, because if kids see golf in video games, it will make them want to golf in real life
Harvey656@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22h
I would think space tourism would be cool if the normal person could afford it.
MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 20h
And maybe add "we can get up there without putting tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere"
Harvey656@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 19h
Gigantic Catapults.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 4 pts · 17h
FYI, you'd have to launch the objects with about 10 km/s, at which point the velocity is high enough to ionize the air around you and create a plasma that basically eradicates everything except the most resistant heat shields.
also the air friction slows you down so you won't actually reach orbit
Harvey656@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
Titanium armor and balls of steel oughta do right?
kboy101222@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 18h
something, something trebuchets
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22h
Just one?
laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 22h
Nobody wants to get datacenter chlamydia
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 1 pts · 19h
But if you spread it to more datacenters, you could be doing a great public service...
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com · 3 pts · 7h
Me IRL
Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 4h
What about lawns reconverted to preservation spaces with native plants, and an occasional bumbling human meandering about?
rmrf@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 4h
Those aren't lawns:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lawn
Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 3h
Some people misuse the term so I wanted to be sure
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 4h
And Hill's biscuits. They're the only people who can fuck up a custard cream. Mind boggling.
thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4h
I love that argument where the AI addict asked if I hate AI so much, would I be able to complete my work without it. And apparently AI all shut down yesterday, and I didn't notice whatsoever because that's how much I use it.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 19h
Nah, golfās great.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 19h
Yeah, if you live in Scotland. Basically anywhere else and it's an ecodisaster wrapped in massive land wastage.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 3 pts · 17h
i heard iceland is only habitable because of the gulf stream
oh wait, we were talking about golf?
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · -3 pts · 23h
Well yes, but have you ever really given golf a chance?
Maybe you will like it.....
csolisr@hub.azkware.net · 12 pts · 22h
Golf in trimmed greens is noob-level, give me extreme golf in an untrimmed mangrove
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · 5 pts · 22h
And alligatorsā¦.
Iām in Floridaās, gators love golf courses.
jtrek@startrek.website · 10 pts · 20h
I feel like one possible future where I go to jail is when a conversation goes like
Me: "That thing you're doing is unnecessary, bad for the environment, and bad for society."
Them: "But I like it"
Me, screaming "BUT I LIKE IT" while I punch them in the face over and over and over and over.
Liking something is not a trump card that supersedes all other concerns, and yet some galaxy brains act like it is. Much more respect for people who can admit "I don't care about the environment or society" out loud.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 19h
well put. and the worst part is the chuds who want to use public funds to pay for their habit - get FUCKED with that garbage, it's a racist, shitty waste of a 'sport'.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · 0 pts · 19h
Not to spoil your righteous rage to much, but in the retirement community I live in the courses have a duel purpose.
If itās dry people play golf.
If there is a hurricane or flood or rain event, they function as retentions ponds.
Seeing a golf course turn into a lake in a single day is an awesome sight.
No rivers or swamps around here to soak up the rain. So the whole place was engineered on purpose to use the courses.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 18h
yeah and there's simply no other way to do flood abatement than building a fuckin golf course that requires water, fertilizer, gas to mow and is a historically racist as fuck sport, played by a tiny number of people, both in terms of population and asset utilization.
it's trump's favorite, that should tell you everything.
reevaluate your choices.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · 0 pts · 17h
Nope. No reevaluation required.
Did you miss the retirement community part?
This is the last stop this train makes. Iām just chilling in heavens waiting room. Shouldnāt be long till they call my number.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16h
ah the boomer creed: fuck you, I got mine
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 18h
I absolutely believe my crotch rocket (of which I am a rider) and AR-15s (which I am a owner) are in the "But I like it" category. Will society be better without them? Absolutely.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 18h
Miniature golf is great.
Golf courses requiring the lushest green grass that requires a massive amount of maintenance can go fuck itself.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 6 pts · 19h
And some people like starting forest fires.
Just because you like it doesn't mean it's a good thing.
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org · 3 pts · 17h
yeah golf is great (written from my nintendo Wii U)
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 18h
I have had fun golfing through heath and forests with a minigolf club.
There is no need for the pesticide and fertilizer ridden, green wasteland that golf normally gets played on.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 15h
I hate all this shit independently...
And I hate little bitches who advertise they hate this shit as their entire personality and do nothing about it but post on Lemmy š«”š¤·