• xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    homeless people find sitting in the shade of trees to be comfortable, and the city whole point of urban design is to make them uncomfortable and to suffer

  • Günther Unlustig 🍄@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Does this count too?

    I already posted this on !balconygardening@slrpnk.net. .

    I’m purposefully growing duckweed on my balcony.
    I’m doing !hydroponics@slrpnk.net, and by doing that, I have lots of waste water with still good fertilizer in it.

    Duckweed is one of the fastest growing, nutrient densest and least demanding plant out there, and you can just scoop it out with a strainer.

    It’s exponentially growing and if you don’t wanna eat it, it makes great organic fertiliser or animal feed with lots of protein and micronutients!

  • 0ops@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It’s not an either/or thing, the tank in the picture is literally sitting under a tree

  • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I had the same reaction until I read this.

    TL;DR: it’s 10-50x more efficient at cleaning the air and actually generates both electricity and fertiliser.

    Yes, it would be better to just get rid of all the cars generating the pollution in the first place and putting in some more trees, but there are clear advantages to this.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I appreciate Rebecca Watson’s opinion. Watched the 6min video, now convinced 👍

      Also learned a new term: kneejerk cynicism

    • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      It provides fertilizer but needs “some food”.

      How much food and what is it?

      Typically for aquariums you have to feed these things fertilizer so it seems odd

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    11 hours ago
    1. Wrong community, maybe? Lol

    2. iirc, algae are better oxygen producers per units of mass and volume, so a tank full of algae might actually be better than a tree. One issue though is that trees can grow on open ground, while algae require a tank to be built, most likely negating the economic benefits. Also, trees are more aesthetically pleasing.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Just give me a 4U tank somewhere where someone else can deal with harvesting the algae and a webcam aimed at it and I can enjoy it just fine from here. For me, selfhosting is mostly about the privacy, not principally about needing to be resistant to loss of Internet connectivity or the like.

    • DUMBASS@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Come on, you know there’s someone out there trying to work out how to selfhost one of these.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      I love this about lemmy.
      Like someone stumbling into the wrong house and still being welcomed.
      It’s a lot more informal and relaxed than on the piss page of the Internet.

  • 𝕿𝖊𝖗 𝕸𝖆𝖝𝖎𝖒𝖆@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I don’t think anything’s wrong with trees, but maybe we could also have some of these as well as trees ?

    Replace the advertisements on bus stops with a really cool green liquid wall 😮 (but they’d have to make the glass super thick, these things tend to be vandalized from time to time)

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      I don’t think anything’s wrong with trees, but maybe we could also have some of these as well as trees ?

      First of all nobody is proposing to replace existing trees with that, that would be silly! AFAIU the people who created this also don’t want these to be used where trees could be planted. They are outspokenly designed for already densely packed cities that are already highly polluted and hostile to trees, to start turning things around. Rebecca Watson’s 6min take

  • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Practical answer, fits in places trees may not. Pessimistic answer, fits in some guys cyberpunk ass vision for what he wants his office block to look like.

  • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Because there’s no serious answers being given even though there are at least 2:

    • trees have roots, roots ruin any nearby human infrastructure. You’ll note this says “in urban environments” and that there are trees nearby, so this is probably the big reason
    • trees need maintenance, which costs money. this is a stupid reason imo, but it’s one nonetheless
    • algae is cool, ok?
    • zeca@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      trees dont ruin ANY human infrastructure. But the usual urban infrastructure isnt well thought out enough to exist around trees. But smarter urbanism is possible and in fact does exist.

      • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        trees dont ruin ANY human infrastructure

        I think you mean all, as this reads more like “nuh uh, trees don’t ruin anything”

        But smarter urbanism is possible and in fact does exist.

        And those are not the norm, so for places that don’t plan to just destroy what’s already there and start anew, this is an option

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Not just more efficient, vastly more efficient. Algae is 10-50 times faster at processing CO² than trees are. Some algae can be up to 400x as efficient.

        It’s just not as “nice” to look at, we usually associate algae with growth in unsafe bodies of water like bogs, etc. versus a nice clean pool or even a maintained pond.

    • Dremor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      On the other hand, algae do not produce shade, not sure if it filters atmospheric pollutants, and trees provide all sort of other services to the local ecosystem.

      Maybe this invention can be used on places where trees cannot lives, but I’d still take a city with trees over a city full of green tanks.

    • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      “let’s uproot all these trees and invade this space. and when the roots of the few remaining trees do what they are supposed to do, let’s blame them for ‘ruining’ human infrastructure!”

      • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        This technique is controversial because there is limited understanding of its complete effects on the marine ecosystem,[5] including side effects and possibly large deviations from expected behavior. Such effects potentially include release of nitrogen oxides,[6] and disruption of the ocean’s nutrient balance.[1] Controversy remains over the effectiveness of atmospheric CO2 sequestration and ecological effects.

        Geoengineering is bullshit proposed by funding from fossil fuel companies so they can continue to pollute.

        The solution is simple: make it illegal to pollute. Fine the companies responsible for their past contributions to the climate catastrophe out of existence.

  • Andres S@social.ridetrans.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    @ECEC Good lord the number of replies here from people whose brains have been destroyed by “planners”…

    1. Trees lower the urban heat island effect.
    2. There’s plenty of room for trees in dense places, so long as “density” means efficient housing and efficient transportation rather than parking lots and stroads and single-family homes.
    3. Someone said “trees require maintenance”, as if asphalt & pretty much everything doesn’t require maintenance?
    4. Trees harm cars. But cars harm cars too!
      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        They are psychologically calming for people as well.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrocnide_moroides

        Dendrocnide moroides, commonly known in Australia as the stinging tree, stinging bush, or gympie-gympie, is a plant in the nettle family Urticaceae found in rainforest areas of Malesia and Australia.[3] It is notorious for its extremely painful and long-lasting sting.

        Depends on the tree.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          58 minutes ago

          Looking at the trees brings most of the relief, so I expect even those are just as calming as long as you don’t touch them and don’t know what they are.

    • Ginny [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      There’s plenty of room for trees in new dense places, sure. But if you’re in the parts of London with old ass-narrow ass-streets, this may be less true.

      • N0x0n@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        London is the perfect place for some futuristic cyberpunk distopia !

        The rest of the world (except some highly polluting countries who anyway doesn’t give a shit about the environment…) can keep the trees&bees and build arround it ! :)