Live data from Hacker News

Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

latimes.com

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#31

Everywhere should be getting rid of grass that's only there for looks.

And for your mental health. Why do you think people spend so much time and money on home decoration?

You know there's other things to plant that use less water and still look nice aside from grass.

If your mental health depends on specifically grass and will not accept any substitute, then I'm just sad for you. Grass is the most boring plant to look at.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, water is way more important than the points you have raised. Maybe if grass can't grow on its own, then we should not intervene nature that much?

Great point. We should shut down all markets and grocery stores as well- if people can’t survive on their own, we shouldn’t be supporting that, it’s unnatural.

People having food to eat and people having green lawns aren't even remotely equivalent dude, come on.

Literally the whole point of "we should use less water on lawns" is so we'll have more water for food, for humans. Because lawns contribute nothing that humans want or need.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#33
There's a type of people that considers good living a sin and they invent 'solutions' like these. The solution to water shortages is to build desalination plants. They are surprisingly cheap - $0.28 per m³.

https://www.meed.com/desalination-tariffs-and-the-race-to-th...

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, they live on planet Earth along with the rest of us schmucks and if they burn the entire world to the ground for profit, fleeing to a compound in New Zealand won't actually save them -- unless "New Zealand" is really code for some off planet haven, which I very seriously doubt.

See: priority Something being a problem for someone doesn't mean it's a priority. Poor people will never prioritize global warming. They will always have more urgent priorities. This is one reason why environmentalism under capitalism is absolutely doomed.

Poor people will never prioritize global warming.

That's extremely funny. I'm dirt poor and gave up my car well over a decade ago, in part because I couldn't afford it anymore and in part because I'm an environmental studies major who takes environmental issues seriously.

I'm not rich enough to afford to smoke cocaine to fuel my delusions and then buy a compound in New Zealand and a personal jet for getting there if my greed helps rapidly burn the world down while I imagine there's someplace safe to go after all the billionaires have destroyed the world in search of their own selfish gratification.

So I make a LOT of pro environmental choices. I got no place to go and no money with which to go there.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend About Face by Army Colonel Hackworth and Red Storm Rising

A Tom Clancy novel, really?

"The detailed research is so believable that I expect this unique thriller to be an instant best seller in the Kremlin."

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: priority Something being a problem for someone doesn't mean it's a priority. Poor people will never prioritize global warming. They will always have more urgent priorities. This is one reason why environmentalism under capitalism is absolutely doomed.

Poor people will never prioritize global warming. That's extremely funny. I'm dirt poor and gave up my car well over a decade ago, in part because I couldn't afford it anymore and in part because I'm an environmental studies major who takes environmental issues seriously. I'm not rich enough to afford to smoke cocaine to fuel my delusions and then buy a compound in New Zealand and a personal jet for getting there if…

first world arrogance - global definition of extreme poverty is $1.90/day, around $700 per year, scratching the dirt for food and water rather than going to college and not having a car

https://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor people will never prioritize global warming. That's extremely funny. I'm dirt poor and gave up my car well over a decade ago, in part because I couldn't afford it anymore and in part because I'm an environmental studies major who takes environmental issues seriously. I'm not rich enough to afford to smoke cocaine to fuel my delusions and then buy a compound in New Zealand and a personal jet for getting there if…

first world arrogance - global definition of extreme poverty is $1.90/day, around $700 per year, scratching the dirt for food and water rather than going to college and not having a car https://www.worldbank.org/en/understanding-poverty

I was homeless for nearly six years and I still go hungry at times.

Re: Editorial: California should say goodbye to grass that’s only there for looks

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: priority Something being a problem for someone doesn't mean it's a priority. Poor people will never prioritize global warming. They will always have more urgent priorities. This is one reason why environmentalism under capitalism is absolutely doomed.

Poor people will never prioritize global warming. That's extremely funny. I'm dirt poor and gave up my car well over a decade ago, in part because I couldn't afford it anymore and in part because I'm an environmental studies major who takes environmental issues seriously. I'm not rich enough to afford to smoke cocaine to fuel my delusions and then buy a compound in New Zealand and a personal jet for getting there if…

> That's extremely funny.

It's also funny because it assumes the global poor are too stupid to realize that global warming means they'll become victims of war, refugees, or starve (choose one or more).

Post reply on HN