this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
512 points (98.1% liked)
Greentext
6101 readers
1061 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem with living on the edge of the countryside is that eventually somebody else builds on the countryside part and you're just living in another crappy suburb.
Exactly, this mindset just creates more suburbs, roads, cars, unwalkable districts, etc.
Houses with gardens are immoral, you should either commit to being a farmer, or live in a flat if you've got any sense.
Unhinged take
Yes.
Sweet damn you people must literally be sobbing all the fucking time. Explain to me the injustices of... Gardening is it now?
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.
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.
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.
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.
My advice in that case is to immediately plant some trees around the perimeter of your property and turn it into a little isolated grove
A man grove, with a man cave.