• Redredme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Can we please, stop reposting this same shit pic for the last, I dunno, year?

    This is the gazillionth time. I get it. Is a stupid algea tank. where a simple tree does the same for a fraction of the cost. It’s of no use in the public space except as a tech demo or art object.

    So. Yeah… Next?

  • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If it’s actually more efficient then trees, could be a good idea. Saw a 51/49 video where he explained the urban development in the US requiring only male trees be planted leads to increased pollen levels and has made the “allergy season” 30+ days longer over the past 50 years or so.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I still want the trees outdoors, but this would be cool for indoor spaces. Each mall or parking lot could have a solar panel overhead and slime-tanks to produce useful byproducts.

      Maybe it could be mixed with and aquaculture like fish and sea plants to create cool scenery

    • korazail@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      While I would hate to lose actual trees, I’m medium on the idea of this on it’s own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don’t see a downside to the overall concept.

      My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though… Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I’m not sure we’re that dystopian yet.

      The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?

  • epicstove@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    When I was visiting Europe, seeing all the trees so well integrated into urban areas was so nice.

    Then we git our flight back to Toronto. Concrete jungle.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Not all do. That’s an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more “I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!”

  • VampirePenguin@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Welp, all the trees are gone but at least there are these cloudy stinking tanks of goo everywhere. Does anything not dystopian happen anymore? Like these things are a set piece from Blade Runner FFS.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      It’s a pretty bad example in this case because the picture is literally on a street with trees. What these are probably for is putting in places where no one’s going to look at them but places where you can’t put trees, like industrial estates and the rooftops of buildings. Aesthetics aren’t important if no one is ever going to look at them aesthetically, and anyway they kind of look cool.

      • AlolanYoda@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        They emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen, which causes rust in metals and aging in humans. So it’s a negative really…

  • matlag@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can’t adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.

    So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now “liquid trees”.

    Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can’t face that.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      That’s an incredibly negative spin.

      All these technologies are improvements on the natural version, not a replacement for the natural version, but an upgrade. If you want nice trees go take a walk in a city park, these aren’t for looking at they have a different objective. We can have both things, one isn’t trying to replace the other.

      • AlolanYoda@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yeah, can plant a tree? Plant a tree. If you can’t, the alternative right now is nothing. This introduces another option.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      trees take don’t come with actual requirement lists. An algae pool can and will come with explicit instructions that are able to be met and won’t destroy the sidewalk for no reason.

    • ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I would be fine with changing my ways if changing my anything didn’t require endless paperwork. How is it fair that some guy invents agriculture and now I have to have a credit score

  • matlag@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can’t adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.

    So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now “liquid trees”.

    Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can’t face that.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Few things about trees in cities: (1) tree roots ruin sidewalks because they upend that stuff; (2) tree roots get into and ruin infrastructure, (3) not every curb can sustain a tree, so these could fit where a tree could not; and (4) they damage stuff when thet fall over in storms.

  • The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    You see, trees get in the way when we want to put down more asphalt to make more room for cars. We need more lanes for cars to park in and more parking lots for cars to park in. The goal is to turn the city into a place devoid of anything but asphalt. Then with no access to dirt to grow food or water to keep them alive, the people will be 100% dependent on their capitalist overlords. Everyone wins.

  • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would support legislation that mandated these be used around the highest carbon emitting facilities. Maybe a few very well designed structures (algae tanks) in very densely populated cities.

    These would be in no way a replacement for trees in a community but, I could see forcing the corporations to use them. Such as those that must pollute because, they can not manufacture these products without polluting.