Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Edible Landscapes: Should Lawns Be Replaced?
Lawns should be replaced by edible landscapes
Regular lawns are boring.
Edible landscapes can increase privacy in capabilities that lawns cannot provide.
Edible lawns are better for the environment
Edible lawns are healthier for people
Edible landscapes are more resilient than lawns.
Edible landscapes help maintain world peace.
Edible landscapes create economic benefits.
Edible landscapes can simultaneously spawn newer and more positive industries while also decreasing negative ones.
Not everyone has a green thumb.
Edible landscapes may be hazardous.
One should not be forced to convert their lawn into a small garden if one doesn't wish to. The choice is to remain free.
Edible landscapes are more likely to be attacked by insects and other plant plagues.
Edible lawns could keep "keeping up with the Joneses" going, just in a different context.
Small vegetable plots would be a massively inefficient and expensive way to produce food. Small yard plots would have a huge cost of labor and resources per unit produced compared to large, efficient farms.
Lawns are good for children and dogs to play on.
Edible lawns could create judicial and enforcement concerns.
Should nuclear energy replace fossil fuels?
Should Genetically Modified Organisms (or GMOs) be promoted as part of a sustainable agricultural economy?
Should renewable energy sources replace fossil fuels?