▲ 524 ▼ Anon describes their dream home (sh.itjust.works) submitted 1 year ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works 83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Comment105@lemm.ee -9 points 1 year ago (3 children) Houses with gardens are immoral, you should either commit to being a farmer, or live in a flat if you've got any sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] synicalx@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 child) Unhinged take permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Comment105@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Yes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Texas_Hangover@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sweet damn you people must literally be sobbing all the fucking time. Explain to me the injustices of... Gardening is it now? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) The issue is not gardening, it is taking more land from nature. That's actually the first reason for biodiversity loss way before any kind of pollution we may produce. So the smallest is the ground footprint of your place the less you play a role in that, hence why an apartment in a tall building is best on that matter. Extended suburbs with gardens are the worst on that matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) well i might be wrong about this but last time i checked all infrastructure of modern society (and i assume that includes houses and cities) takes up about 3% of our land. That is not so much, if you compare it to agriculture which takes up much more (i forgot the exact number). So i would argue that gardens aren't the biggest problem. Frankly, if you have ten billion people on a planet, of course it's gonna impact the environment. There is no way to avoid that. I wouldn't start nitpicking with whether people can have a garden or not, though. A garden can help people with a fresh source of vegetables which can improve health and wellbeing, and strengthen independence and community-building, maybe, if the garden is shared or vegetables are distributed among neighbours. It also reduces the transport distance for vegetables which saves on emissions. So, a garden can be a meaningful part of human life, i'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago We need to rationalize land usage to succeed in the environmental transition. Producing food is definitely a good reason. If one uses its garden as well as a farmer would to produce food, then that would not be a problem. But I think the vast majority of garden owners don't, so it would be more reasonable to give back this land for farming or leave it to nature. Yes, 10 billion people are going to have an impact, but the impact on land usage is not the same if they live in suburbs of individual houses with gardens or in five stories apartment buildings withing walkable cities with public transportation. About the benefits of the gardening activities, cities also offer shared gardening spaces, so people who actually want to garden can do it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago Is rural living also immortal to you? At least near me the economics of becoming a farmer aren't terrible but lots of them have second jobs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] synicalx@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 child) Unhinged take permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Comment105@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago Yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Texas_Hangover@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Sweet damn you people must literally be sobbing all the fucking time. Explain to me the injustices of... Gardening is it now? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) The issue is not gardening, it is taking more land from nature. That's actually the first reason for biodiversity loss way before any kind of pollution we may produce. So the smallest is the ground footprint of your place the less you play a role in that, hence why an apartment in a tall building is best on that matter. Extended suburbs with gardens are the worst on that matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) well i might be wrong about this but last time i checked all infrastructure of modern society (and i assume that includes houses and cities) takes up about 3% of our land. That is not so much, if you compare it to agriculture which takes up much more (i forgot the exact number). So i would argue that gardens aren't the biggest problem. Frankly, if you have ten billion people on a planet, of course it's gonna impact the environment. There is no way to avoid that. I wouldn't start nitpicking with whether people can have a garden or not, though. A garden can help people with a fresh source of vegetables which can improve health and wellbeing, and strengthen independence and community-building, maybe, if the garden is shared or vegetables are distributed among neighbours. It also reduces the transport distance for vegetables which saves on emissions. So, a garden can be a meaningful part of human life, i'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago We need to rationalize land usage to succeed in the environmental transition. Producing food is definitely a good reason. If one uses its garden as well as a farmer would to produce food, then that would not be a problem. But I think the vast majority of garden owners don't, so it would be more reasonable to give back this land for farming or leave it to nature. Yes, 10 billion people are going to have an impact, but the impact on land usage is not the same if they live in suburbs of individual houses with gardens or in five stories apartment buildings withing walkable cities with public transportation. About the benefits of the gardening activities, cities also offer shared gardening spaces, so people who actually want to garden can do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) The issue is not gardening, it is taking more land from nature. That's actually the first reason for biodiversity loss way before any kind of pollution we may produce. So the smallest is the ground footprint of your place the less you play a role in that, hence why an apartment in a tall building is best on that matter. Extended suburbs with gardens are the worst on that matter. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) well i might be wrong about this but last time i checked all infrastructure of modern society (and i assume that includes houses and cities) takes up about 3% of our land. That is not so much, if you compare it to agriculture which takes up much more (i forgot the exact number). So i would argue that gardens aren't the biggest problem. Frankly, if you have ten billion people on a planet, of course it's gonna impact the environment. There is no way to avoid that. I wouldn't start nitpicking with whether people can have a garden or not, though. A garden can help people with a fresh source of vegetables which can improve health and wellbeing, and strengthen independence and community-building, maybe, if the garden is shared or vegetables are distributed among neighbours. It also reduces the transport distance for vegetables which saves on emissions. So, a garden can be a meaningful part of human life, i'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago We need to rationalize land usage to succeed in the environmental transition. Producing food is definitely a good reason. If one uses its garden as well as a farmer would to produce food, then that would not be a problem. But I think the vast majority of garden owners don't, so it would be more reasonable to give back this land for farming or leave it to nature. Yes, 10 billion people are going to have an impact, but the impact on land usage is not the same if they live in suburbs of individual houses with gardens or in five stories apartment buildings withing walkable cities with public transportation. About the benefits of the gardening activities, cities also offer shared gardening spaces, so people who actually want to garden can do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) well i might be wrong about this but last time i checked all infrastructure of modern society (and i assume that includes houses and cities) takes up about 3% of our land. That is not so much, if you compare it to agriculture which takes up much more (i forgot the exact number). So i would argue that gardens aren't the biggest problem. Frankly, if you have ten billion people on a planet, of course it's gonna impact the environment. There is no way to avoid that. I wouldn't start nitpicking with whether people can have a garden or not, though. A garden can help people with a fresh source of vegetables which can improve health and wellbeing, and strengthen independence and community-building, maybe, if the garden is shared or vegetables are distributed among neighbours. It also reduces the transport distance for vegetables which saves on emissions. So, a garden can be a meaningful part of human life, i'd argue. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago We need to rationalize land usage to succeed in the environmental transition. Producing food is definitely a good reason. If one uses its garden as well as a farmer would to produce food, then that would not be a problem. But I think the vast majority of garden owners don't, so it would be more reasonable to give back this land for farming or leave it to nature. Yes, 10 billion people are going to have an impact, but the impact on land usage is not the same if they live in suburbs of individual houses with gardens or in five stories apartment buildings withing walkable cities with public transportation. About the benefits of the gardening activities, cities also offer shared gardening spaces, so people who actually want to garden can do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 point 1 year ago We need to rationalize land usage to succeed in the environmental transition. Producing food is definitely a good reason. If one uses its garden as well as a farmer would to produce food, then that would not be a problem. But I think the vast majority of garden owners don't, so it would be more reasonable to give back this land for farming or leave it to nature. Yes, 10 billion people are going to have an impact, but the impact on land usage is not the same if they live in suburbs of individual houses with gardens or in five stories apartment buildings withing walkable cities with public transportation. About the benefits of the gardening activities, cities also offer shared gardening spaces, so people who actually want to garden can do it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago Is rural living also immortal to you? At least near me the economics of becoming a farmer aren't terrible but lots of them have second jobs. permalink fedilink source parent
