4 ms·

A suburban lawn is such an egregious use of land. The middle class of the 1950s was grotesque and arrogant.

smithkl42 11y ago
This is a pretty egregious example of what has been called "chronological snobbery". I won't deny that the 1950's had their problems. But to assume that they were distinctively more "grotesque and arrogant" than today is kinda silly. You want grotesque? Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. You want arrogant? Look at the comment above.
- danharaj 11y ago
  > Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. I find wasteful extravagance grotesque. You find people rubbing bodies together grotesque. And I like many cultural developments of that era. None of them have to do with white people in their racist suburbs driving gas guzzlers between the city and their useless lawn.
  - smithkl42 11y ago
    I'm not saying that they didn't have their grotesqueries - but the 50s' ubiquitous racism was far more appalling than the size of their cars or lawns. Please remember that they were facing a radically different set of political, economic and environmental challenges back then than we are today. (It's also worth keeping in mind that most of the people driving big cars and watering big lawns in 1955 had been getting shot at or shot down or blown up just some ten years prior, while they were saving the world for folks like you and me.) As for your side point: I'm actually rather fond of the idea of people rubbing their bodies together. But I think it's quite a bit healthier for the folks concerned, their families, and society at large, if they happen to be married. Just compare the progress the black community has made since Jim Crow with the regress of the black family. In 1965, 24% of black children were born to single mothers. Now, it's over 70%. If you consider something to be grotesque if it hurts a culture's long-term health - THAT is grotesque. And tragic.
    - noir_lord 11y ago
      The "damage" to society has far less to do with single mothers and I suspect rather more to do with how they are vilified and trapped in low paying/not working at all. Countries that have good social programs encouraging single mothers to progress with their lives and giving them the support they need have better outcomes, I think it's insanely short sighted on a societal level not to do this, those children either grow up as functioning members of society or not and the cost on the not option is far higher. Here in the UK the media went to town on single mothers and it was awful (our media mostly is tbh).
jp555 11y ago
I bet an average lawn generates more oxygen & sequestures more carbon than 30 trees. It just grows so much faster.
- iSnow 11y ago
  You can't be serious. The leaf surface of a lawn is much less than that of a tree. And there is zero sequestration of CO2, because all that cut grass is either burnt or turned into compost the next year. With a tree, there's at least a chance the wood is used for some decades.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    At least in my area, that's not how it works. Much of the cut grass goes to the dump, where it's buried anaerobically. That's almost perfect carbon sequestration.
  - jp555 11y ago
    I wonder how much biomass a tree grows throughout a year? Seems grass would be more as it just keeps turning air into leaves nonstop. Just picturing all those piles of composted grass compared to the pile of leaves raked up in fall...
cmurf 11y ago
It does depend on perspective. There's a certain contextual ignorance to anything. One perspective appreciates the manicured, soft, growing carpet that kids play on; and another sees it as a crop that gets watered, fertilized, harvested then thrown in the garbage. Now, consider that 1950's lawn still exists today in cities like L.A., experiencing extended drought. That's approaching grotesque, at least the judgement is coming from the same era that the aesthetic is being executed. Thing is, lawn irrigation (and other resources that go into landscaping) is a lot more efficient than typical "flood" agricultural irrigation, and it's in agriculture where the efficiency gains by reducing evaporation loss has the most promise.

This is a pretty egregious example of what has been called "chronological snobbery". I won't deny that the 1950's had their problems. But to assume that they were distinctively more "grotesque and arrogant" than today is kinda silly. You want grotesque? Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. You want arrogant? Look at the comment above.

danharaj 11y ago
> Look at the modern hookup scene enabled by Tinder and its ilk. I find wasteful extravagance grotesque. You find people rubbing bodies together grotesque. And I like many cultural developments of that era. None of them have to do with white people in their racist suburbs driving gas guzzlers between the city and their useless lawn.
- smithkl42 11y ago
  I'm not saying that they didn't have their grotesqueries - but the 50s' ubiquitous racism was far more appalling than the size of their cars or lawns. Please remember that they were facing a radically different set of political, economic and environmental challenges back then than we are today. (It's also worth keeping in mind that most of the people driving big cars and watering big lawns in 1955 had been getting shot at or shot down or blown up just some ten years prior, while they were saving the world for folks like you and me.) As for your side point: I'm actually rather fond of the idea of people rubbing their bodies together. But I think it's quite a bit healthier for the folks concerned, their families, and society at large, if they happen to be married. Just compare the progress the black community has made since Jim Crow with the regress of the black family. In 1965, 24% of black children were born to single mothers. Now, it's over 70%. If you consider something to be grotesque if it hurts a culture's long-term health - THAT is grotesque. And tragic.
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    The "damage" to society has far less to do with single mothers and I suspect rather more to do with how they are vilified and trapped in low paying/not working at all. Countries that have good social programs encouraging single mothers to progress with their lives and giving them the support they need have better outcomes, I think it's insanely short sighted on a societal level not to do this, those children either grow up as functioning members of society or not and the cost on the not option is far higher. Here in the UK the media went to town on single mothers and it was awful (our media mostly is tbh).

jp555 11y ago

I bet an average lawn generates more oxygen & sequestures more carbon than 30 trees. It just grows so much faster.

iSnow 11y ago
You can't be serious. The leaf surface of a lawn is much less than that of a tree. And there is zero sequestration of CO2, because all that cut grass is either burnt or turned into compost the next year. With a tree, there's at least a chance the wood is used for some decades.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  At least in my area, that's not how it works. Much of the cut grass goes to the dump, where it's buried anaerobically. That's almost perfect carbon sequestration.
- jp555 11y ago
  I wonder how much biomass a tree grows throughout a year? Seems grass would be more as it just keeps turning air into leaves nonstop. Just picturing all those piles of composted grass compared to the pile of leaves raked up in fall...

cmurf 11y ago

It does depend on perspective. There's a certain contextual ignorance to anything. One perspective appreciates the manicured, soft, growing carpet that kids play on; and another sees it as a crop that gets watered, fertilized, harvested then thrown in the garbage. Now, consider that 1950's lawn still exists today in cities like L.A., experiencing extended drought. That's approaching grotesque, at least the judgement is coming from the same era that the aesthetic is being executed. Thing is, lawn irrigation (and other resources that go into landscaping) is a lot more efficient than typical "flood" agricultural irrigation, and it's in agriculture where the efficiency gains by reducing evaporation loss has the most promise.