4 ms·

I like to ponder what future societies will be appalled by that we consider totally routine. My guesses are something to do with animal rights or water usage.

I like to ponder what future societies will be appalled by that we consider totally routine. My guesses are something to do with animal rights or water usage. Maybe filling big pools with water just so you can swim around will be seen as disgusting waste.

csdvrx 4y ago
> Maybe filling big pools with water just so you can swim around will be seen as disgusting waste. I have seen that being discussed recently, but I wonder: is it really a significant waste? How much water does it consume, compared to say having a garden, or a green lawn? Most pools have filtration systems and rarely require to be fully emptied then refilled. It seems a class-based attack on people who can own pools, and therefore a dogwhistle, because the same attack could be made on taking a shower every day.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  Less than a lawn, more than a water efficient garden. https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pool-haters-20140913-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pool-haters-20140913-sto...
  - csdvrx 4y ago
    Most people don't have water efficient gardens, and may refuse the concept. Also, after reading the article: > But some of those agencies are walking back the rules as they make a surprising discovery: Pools aren’t the water wasters some have made them out to be. So I insist: it isn't a large waste. It's a politically motivated move, and therefore a dogwhistle. I believe it would be better to invite pool owners to reduce evaporation by adopting a system to cover the pool, than to shame them: otherwise, we should shame people having a lawn (and people taking a shower, and people wasting electricity on videogames...)
    - bambataa 4y ago
      That’s interesting about a pool compared to a lawn, though I was thinking about a municipal pool in a UK context (barely anyone has a swimming pool and lawns don’t need watering). Maybe we’ll reach a point where the idea of using that much water for recreation seems overly indulgent?

csdvrx 4y ago

> Maybe filling big pools with water just so you can swim around will be seen as disgusting waste. I have seen that being discussed recently, but I wonder: is it really a significant waste? How much water does it consume, compared to say having a garden, or a green lawn? Most pools have filtration systems and rarely require to be fully emptied then refilled. It seems a class-based attack on people who can own pools, and therefore a dogwhistle, because the same attack could be made on taking a shower every day.

lazyasciiart 4y ago
Less than a lawn, more than a water efficient garden. https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pool-haters-20140913-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pool-haters-20140913-sto...
- csdvrx 4y ago
  Most people don't have water efficient gardens, and may refuse the concept. Also, after reading the article: > But some of those agencies are walking back the rules as they make a surprising discovery: Pools aren’t the water wasters some have made them out to be. So I insist: it isn't a large waste. It's a politically motivated move, and therefore a dogwhistle. I believe it would be better to invite pool owners to reduce evaporation by adopting a system to cover the pool, than to shame them: otherwise, we should shame people having a lawn (and people taking a shower, and people wasting electricity on videogames...)
  - bambataa 4y ago
    That’s interesting about a pool compared to a lawn, though I was thinking about a municipal pool in a UK context (barely anyone has a swimming pool and lawns don’t need watering). Maybe we’ll reach a point where the idea of using that much water for recreation seems overly indulgent?