4 ms·

This has been a benefit of buying electric power tools and mowers for me. Nobody can hear them if they're not pretty close.

jamal-kumar 4y ago
I opened the door recently just to have a tiny rock fly from a weed whacker across the way come RIGHT into my eye, it hurt for over a day. Just hearing those rocks hit against my window is stressful enough but that was enough for me to fantasize about locking people up for using these things if I owned my own small country.
- feet 4y ago
  How about banning grass lawns instead? They're incredibly wasteful. We could be using land to grow food or do other useful things
  - protonbob 4y ago
    I think a good benefit of lawns is that it prevents too many bugs from growing in the lawn. However, if you live somewhere where you have to water a lawn I would agree with this.
    - feet 4y ago
      Why are bugs a bad thing? From a human perspective I can understand the dislike of things like mosquitoes, but we seem to enjoy decimating ecosystems purely for our own benefit.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
    Lawns serve an unacknowledged purpose in many places, they keep the land clear. Without cutting the land will revert to scrub. Even if you wanted to grow vegetables you’d still need to cut the grass and keep saplings from growing wherever they happen to sprout.
    - feet 4y ago
      Why is keeping land clear important? That's an ecosystem where numerous organisms live, its not like it's "unused" See my other comment about bugs. Almost any option is better than a wasteful grass lawn
      - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
        I’m not pro-lawn in the sense of believing that a well manicured monoculture of some non-native grass is the ideal use of residential land. That’s bad. Letting dandelions grow and having a spot for butterflies and native bugs is a great thing and should be encouraged. Using part of the lawn for a food garden is also laudable. Keep in mind that when I talk about lawns serving a purpose I’m using the context of small, reasonably sized homes. In that context, you don’t want a dense thicket of brush reducing accessibility and potentially causing issues with the plumbing and foundation. You want to keep some free space to roam and work with as well. You don’t want a home where you open the door into a bunch of unkept flora. You don’t want to have to wade through waist high brush in order to get around the outside of your house. It may sound a little extreme, but again I’m not advocating for perfectly manicured lawns - just reasonably kept ones with minimal pesticides.
        feet 4y ago
        I think that's a reasonable view to have. It doesn't take up a lot of space while allowing for natural ecosystems to exist alongside human single family residences. Another idea could be to increase density of human housing while providing vertically built parks integrated into the housing for people who want to use them and keeping larger areas in their more natural state to foster vibrant ecosystems. This would allow people in the high density housing to have space to roam or work while giving the least human interference on the surroundings, in theory at least. We could even move transportation underground with high density transit networks to decrease impact on surface ecosystems even further.
      - bluefirebrand 4y ago
        Well you don't want the areas people live in to get too overgrown because animals move in. Many animals are harmless of course, but many aren't and the ones that are harmless living in your yard are the ones that dangerous animals prey on. I don't carefully manicure my lawn by any means but I do make sure it's not too overgrown because I don't want skunks to move into my back yard
  - spfzero 4y ago
    You'd have to ban trees as well. Few people in my area have lawns, but all of their gardeners run the leaf blower for 20 minutes pushing the leaves around.
    - feet 4y ago
      My comment was purely in reference to the person wanting to ban weedwackers Trees make great habitats for local wildlife, short grass does not

jamal-kumar 4y ago

I opened the door recently just to have a tiny rock fly from a weed whacker across the way come RIGHT into my eye, it hurt for over a day. Just hearing those rocks hit against my window is stressful enough but that was enough for me to fantasize about locking people up for using these things if I owned my own small country.

feet 4y ago
How about banning grass lawns instead? They're incredibly wasteful. We could be using land to grow food or do other useful things
- protonbob 4y ago
  I think a good benefit of lawns is that it prevents too many bugs from growing in the lawn. However, if you live somewhere where you have to water a lawn I would agree with this.
  - feet 4y ago
    Why are bugs a bad thing? From a human perspective I can understand the dislike of things like mosquitoes, but we seem to enjoy decimating ecosystems purely for our own benefit.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  Lawns serve an unacknowledged purpose in many places, they keep the land clear. Without cutting the land will revert to scrub. Even if you wanted to grow vegetables you’d still need to cut the grass and keep saplings from growing wherever they happen to sprout.
  - feet 4y ago
    Why is keeping land clear important? That's an ecosystem where numerous organisms live, its not like it's "unused" See my other comment about bugs. Almost any option is better than a wasteful grass lawn
    - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
      I’m not pro-lawn in the sense of believing that a well manicured monoculture of some non-native grass is the ideal use of residential land. That’s bad. Letting dandelions grow and having a spot for butterflies and native bugs is a great thing and should be encouraged. Using part of the lawn for a food garden is also laudable. Keep in mind that when I talk about lawns serving a purpose I’m using the context of small, reasonably sized homes. In that context, you don’t want a dense thicket of brush reducing accessibility and potentially causing issues with the plumbing and foundation. You want to keep some free space to roam and work with as well. You don’t want a home where you open the door into a bunch of unkept flora. You don’t want to have to wade through waist high brush in order to get around the outside of your house. It may sound a little extreme, but again I’m not advocating for perfectly manicured lawns - just reasonably kept ones with minimal pesticides.
      - feet 4y ago
        I think that's a reasonable view to have. It doesn't take up a lot of space while allowing for natural ecosystems to exist alongside human single family residences. Another idea could be to increase density of human housing while providing vertically built parks integrated into the housing for people who want to use them and keeping larger areas in their more natural state to foster vibrant ecosystems. This would allow people in the high density housing to have space to roam or work while giving the least human interference on the surroundings, in theory at least. We could even move transportation underground with high density transit networks to decrease impact on surface ecosystems even further.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      Well you don't want the areas people live in to get too overgrown because animals move in. Many animals are harmless of course, but many aren't and the ones that are harmless living in your yard are the ones that dangerous animals prey on. I don't carefully manicure my lawn by any means but I do make sure it's not too overgrown because I don't want skunks to move into my back yard
- spfzero 4y ago
  You'd have to ban trees as well. Few people in my area have lawns, but all of their gardeners run the leaf blower for 20 minutes pushing the leaves around.
  - feet 4y ago
    My comment was purely in reference to the person wanting to ban weedwackers Trees make great habitats for local wildlife, short grass does not