• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Also beds back then were made of straw and rope

    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.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 hours ago

            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”.

    • webp@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      The point is things need to change when they no longer do the job just fine.

    • shiftymccool@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        The basic design of lawns doesn’t need to change

        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.