It seems to me that we're purposefully reducing the surface area that can absorb carbon dioxide by mowing lawns. Longer blades of grass will absorb more CO2 and less CO2 will go into the atmosphere if we stop using gasoline powered mowers and trimmers.

This is on my mind because I saw an ad for a Cyclone Rake, a large tractor that sucks up leaves. Normally, for many millions of years, leaves were not picked up. There has to be some deleterious effect on the environment due to the fact we are constantly clearing leaves. This led me to ask: What happens because of all the mowing? The most obvious side effects of mowing grass is we're increasing the CO2 into the atmosphere and reducing the surface area that absorbs it.

Plus, lawn mowers are extremely irritating because of the obnoxiously loud noises they make. The automobile industry is being forced to make their vehicles more efficient, but I am not convinced our leaders are truly interested in efficiency. Cutting out lawnmowers and trimmers would be a good start. Who cares if the lawns overrun the sidewalks and streets? I say, let them destroy the damned concrete.

Why does this post remind me of the time in sixth grade when in science class I, plain as day, asked if farts polluted the air?

The sad part was I wasn't even trying to be funny.

Anyways, I’m not about to hold my emissions in an effort to reduce my “carbon footprint,” so I guess comedy comes before “Mother Gaia” in my book.

As for grass, I wouldn't want the neighborhood council on my butt for not mowing. Nothing is worse than people with no lives itching for a moment to make a sly comment when your grass is over the two inch mark.

Also, don't you live in a condo? Why the sudden interest in mowing? As for the noise, it's not like anyone is mowing at 3 in the morning is it? You really can't mow too late or too early because of dew, unless you don't care about your mower.

Curiosity isn't a vice. I think it's more like a virtue. And it is an important question. Perhaps you don't  contribute a lot to climate change with your own, relentless farting, but herds upon herds upon herds of methane-emitting cattle sure do. What answer did you get, by the way?

I think the most imporant question is why it's legal not to live in tall buildings (in cities) coated with ever-replaced fast-growing bamboo stored beneath the earth to make new oil and spare the climate.

I'm surprised you didn't suggest us to remove the grass and acquire trees or bushes in their place.

Actually a lot of places are "xerascaping now", which is in fact removing grass and replacing it with flora that's in a more natural habitat and requires very little water (as whatever they need is provided by nature).

Honestly I would imagine that shorter grass doesn't contribute significantly to any sort of amount of CO2 increase. It's more the fact we're pulling it all out of the ground where it used to not be 'in circulation' (in oil, etc) which does it.

Grassie's right about the methane emitting cows. CH4 (methane) does a better job of trapping heat than carbon dioxide, due to the tent-like shape the hydrogen bonds make with the carbon atom.

I can hear the powerful tractor mower very clearly through my walls. It should be illegal for a machine to produce sounds loud enough to penetrate the walls of a structure which consists of sentient organisms, unless the machine is operated at a distance that sufficiently dissipates the intensity of the mechanical energy. Not  only do the sound waves penetrate my walls, but the noxious emissions from the gasoline engines of the tractor and trimmer. As if those machines weren't loud enough, the groundskeepers have a cacophonous finale. For some reason, the little grass clippings may not remain on concrete. So they walk around with leaf blowers (for hours) and push the little grass clippings onto the lawns.

I can not think of any way they could possibly improve their inefficiency. They must've sat down and thought about how to maximize the use of gasoline and how to compete with the noises of the wildlife.

That's why I got one of those awesome lawnmowers that's push-powered. A lot less of a hassle, since it doesn't consume fuel, and doesn't run on electricity, so no need to lug around a cord as you're doing it.

I'd miss the smell of grass being cut.  If there was ever a smell that reminded me of beautiful summer weather, that would be it.

i cant wait to move to AZ where my yard will be rocks... ill fly back to IL a few times every summer to visit...

I actually got a straight-faced "yes" on that one, much like I did when I asked if condoms help prevent the spread of AIDS in health class the same year. Maybe my mother shouldn't have let me stay up till 11 to watch ER on Thursdays when growing up?

Oh, and contrary to popular belief, my o-ring isn't broken. I just don't want to spontaneously combust like Kenny on South Park. Moderation is the key!

I'll somewhat give you a tractor mower, your initial post seemed more focused on typical, normal mowers. That being said, I can't resist going here:

http://www.soundtrackcentral.com/forums … 158#p42158

Can't you just put on these $1800 headphones and listen to some music? I mean that's what you bought them for, right?

What's the matter now, people? Sick of mowing lawns...?

If grass becomes overgrown, then bugs and animals start moving in. The whole purpose of mowing grass is keeping our civilized quarters just that - civilized; so we're not overrun by foliage and animals.

I'd agree if you said that mowers should be equipped and run on electric rechargeable batteries, as opposed to petroleum-based products; with hybrid and straight-up electric batteries/engines becoming more prominent in automobiles, why not do the same with other vehicles or devices that run on petroleum?

If anything, a lawn mower that runs on electricity would be more practical than an electric car; at least, the lawn mower, you don't need to worry about traveling long distances on; the longest, largest lawn I've ever mowed took 2 hours - but lawns like that aren't necessarily in great supply. Most lawns only take me 30 minutes or less - why WOULDN'T you want an electric-powered mower? Smelling all that gasoline right up in your face like that is really obnoxious to me, and probably not good for your health, and it's definitely not good for your lawn if you're spilling gasoline on your lawn - I'd swear there's only so many dead patches on my parents' lawn because their mower's fuel tank leaks.

Noise pollution is obnoxious at any time of day.

It's the smell of suffering. The unmistakable smell is a certain chemical that grass emits when it's cut (I don't recall the name). Not only does the grass suffer, but all the neat little creatures that enjoy decaying plant matter, such as millipedes. I never see millipedes!

We're not civilized yet. There are indeed animals among us, even in the most civilized of habitats. I'll admit we're civilized when I can throw my keys away. If I can walk outside naked and piss on the lawn, then I'll admit we're civilized. If I can blow out someone's tires when I see them throw a cigarette butt out the window, then I'll admit we're civilized. If I can turn on the TV and see that the last terrorist was captured and melted alive, then I'll say we're civilized.

  I don't know what's going on with millipedes, though. I keep thinking about them, wondering why I never see them. Since there isn't any decaying planet matter (the groundskeepers meticulously remove it), there's nothing for them to eat. I should walk outside and see all sorts of critters. But I get to look at...people walking dogs! Wow!

Dammit, man. I'd love to have a mini jungle in my backyard, but the last time I let my lawn grow itself, my neighbours decided to be bitches about it and complained until the condo board got on my ass. Buncha fuckin' nosy pricks.

its better to have a bungle in the jungle,, than a jungle in your bunghole...

i could sleep right thru any lawnmower... i have 747s landing and taking off at 2000'-3000' right outside my balcony...

Uhh, yeah, we're just trying to talk about cutting grass here, not really the kind of topic you can discuss society's ills in conjunction with...sorry man, but even I am going to have to put a stamp of "PRETENTIOUSNESS" on this comment.

There're times and places to discuss the ills of society, and there're times and places where and when it doesn't make sense to discuss the ills of society; this topic is the latter, where it doesn't make sense to be discussing the ills of society in junction with the topic of cutting grass.

Although, to be fair, I often used to erupt into self-righteous debates about the ills of society when simpler topics were being discussed; I look back on those discussions, and recognize that I must've sounded like a whiny little shit...

For example, "Wow, these're some nice ski slopes!" "Yeah, they must've deforested a whole bunch of land, and left a lot of wild life homeless..." "Calm down, dude, I'm just complementing the ski resort, here!" See how I tried bringing up deforestation and wild life extinction, when someone was trying to complement something? Bad taste, don't you think? That friend eventually decided to stop hanging around with me, can you conclude why? HE GOT SICK OF ME COMPLAINING ABOUT THINGS THAT DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND!...that was back in high school, BTW.

Uhh, what part of nudity and pissing outside seems civilized to you? You have a toilet for that; walking around naked and pissing outside is the kind of thing animals do.

What part of almost killing someone for littering (e.g., putting out their tires while their vehicle is still moving) strikes you as being civilized? Or even putting out their tires when their vehicle is standing still? What part of destruction of property sounds civilized to you at all?

Besides, the cops are already pretty overzealous about punishing people for littering as it is. Yes, it is irksome if not alarming seeing trash piling up on the side of the road; indeed, an improper disposal of waste shows a lack of civility, but so does murderous or destructive intent...

What part of blood lust AGAINST blood lust strikes you as being civilized? It's kind of a hypocrisy and contradiction to say that savagery (like murder) is required to establish civility...murder and death just breed more murder and death.

...

And come to think, we were just talking about cutting grass not too long ago, eh? Now THERE'S a friggin' social commentary for you, Frank Miller!

P.S. I, too, used to be irritated about having to mow lawns...then I started charging for it!

I actually agree with Jodo's sentiments regarding that matter. If you've read about some of the shit that political and religious extremists do to not only each other but to innocent people in the interests of making a point, you'd see that the world would be better off without them.

That's a whole 'nother bag of worms I don't wanna open, though.

You know, I kind of hate the term "noise pollution" for some reason. I think it's an ill-conceived term created by someone trying to be really sly. Not saying its not real, but still sounds like an arrogant term… “it’s too noisy” would be fine enough.

It's a really dodgy subject - one of those kill-or-be-killed things. You can't just sit back and tolerate violence against you - that's just unassertive, and rather contradictory to self-preservation. Yet, retaliating just provokes further retaliation.

Me, I'd choose the road of attempting to establish piece between multiple warring factions, at least, before trying to blow any of them away. I'm just such a hippie these days, eh?

I get what you're trying to say, but you have to admit those we are currently fighting against - what's the term now, "enemy combatants"? - have little to no desire to establish peace. It's not like fighting against a recognized nation where there is known power structure.

Yeah, that's true, but people are also becoming overzealous and suspicious of Arabic people in general, even when they aren't even related or affiliated with the terrorists who ARE attacking us.

And then, there's that instance of the French trying to outlaw Arab women from wearing their head scarfs in France (I don't think the French and the Arabs have ever gotten along with each other, have they?)

I really worry about this becoming a whole "Christianity Vs. Islam" or "West Vs. Middle-East" war, especially when you have wankers protesting the entire Muslim religion, or when people become weary of Arabs in general.

It's hard not to look at this situation, and not either see it being either racially or religiously fueled...at least, it is for most people.

I just think a lot of us on this side of the ocean are doing things that're just exacerbating the situation (making it worse).

When I was 15, I had managed to save up $200, which I spent on a mulching mower. I made a crude advertisement of my services, along with a picture I drew myself of a stick-man mowing a lawn. My dad took it to work and made several hundred copies. I delivered them all in my neighborhood, door-to-door, and received one phone call in regards to the ad. She lived pretty far away. It was a good two mile walk, but I managed to snag another customer in the area. So it was worth it. In order to prepare my walking path, I had to sneak out one night and cut a slit in a chain-link fence. That shaved off a good mile. I bought a green 1977 Chevy pick-up truck for $700 when I was 17 and used that to bring my mower to an apartment complex, about 15 miles away. One kid in my neighborhood never quit cutting grass and managed to make $7000 one summer, the last I heard.

I disagree. No term can be considered pretentious which finds its way into AC/DC lyrics.

Wow, that's kinda lame.

apparently San Francisco is boycotting the state of AZ for the new immigration law.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … ation.html

this could potentially spell disaster for Arizona's buttlube manufacturing sector...

Oh, I get it - because San Francisco has a large gay population!  Ha, good one.

Well, there probably are a lot but apparently there are still enough bible beaters out there to keep gay marrage outlawed. But hell, I think hetrosexuals have done more damage to the institution of marrage with today's divorce rates than homosexuals can ever hope to do in these people's minds.

you guys should all know that i rip on on everyone,, I personally have nothing against gays..
the only subject i would never joke about is animal cruelty.
the fun part is trying to phrase the remark to sound like a legitimate news headline...

I was raised to believe that all gays should be gathered onto one island, which would be bombed. Due to my extensive readings, I had figured out about 15 years ago that gays don't choose to be gay anymore than straights choose to be straight. For example, I was never given a choice concerning my sexuality, just as I was never given a choice concerning how many limbs I would be born with or the shape of my kidneys. Sexual preference is governed by the physical structure of the brain, which is not something we can consciously control. The two theories I have read in regards to homosexuality in mammals and birds (penguins can be gay, for example) are:

1. They are part of the gene pool to act as caregivers in the event that the female population is low. They are not making more life, so they can aid others that do have offspring.
2. They act as buffers to keep numbers in check. Again, they do not add to the increase in population.

  Only the first theory makes sense.

The first theory doesn't account for the 'purpose' of female homosexuals, and assumes that all mammals and birds live communally. I don't really see how the second one makes any less sense than the first, but then I'm not really concerned with figuring out why homosexuality exists.

We can't discuss homosexuality without someone linking this video.

I'm not a strand of DNA, so I don't really know how those nucleotides make 'decisions'. For some reason, brain structures that cause homosexuality have evolved. No one consciously chooses to be homosexual. If it were a conscious decision, then that would imply other mammals (including birds) are also conscious. As for female homosexuals, they could exist for the same reason as the male equivalents - to act as caregivers. But there is a trend going on that completely shoots down the first theory.

Sometimes, homosexuals take on marriage partners for the purpose of producing offspring. And then abandon the partner. There are 3 cases I've observed:

1. Regular customer at work. Married 32 years. Wife left him for a woman.
2. Truck driver I know. His son was married for less than 5 years. She left him for a woman shortly after they produced a kid.
3. Head cook at my workplace. Married for 20 years. Wife left him for a woman.

So homosexuals still have the same desire to have children of their own, which implies the theories are wrong. If they were truly homosexual, then the prospect of reproducing would not outweigh the repulsiveness of copulation with one of the opposite sex. And then there are the bisexuals, for which I have never heard of a theory explaining their origin. For example, there is a woman customer I regularly talk to. She has sex with men and women, provided they are hot. So maybe bisexuals have supercharged sex drives, since they'll take both. There are more sexual irregularities, but I don't want to mention them.

  It's interesting to think of why homosexuality exists because of the paradoxical nature. The real argument here is whether it's an advantage or simply an anomaly. While things seem purposeful in evolution, such as fingers and flippers, they are not. They happened because those organisms survived. Homosexuals survive, which implies a purpose. But in reality, there is some function that they serve (I don't know what it is).

I'm not sure what this has to do with cutting grass, but....

I think of homosexuality as an anomaly. Sure it's a natural occurrence, but I don't believe it has an express purpose. No more than other mental or biological aberrations or deviations. I have a certain mild fetish that I can't explain, but would be embarrassed to admit to others. I know it doesn't gel with the 'natural' way of things and I just try to ignore it for the most part. At best it's largely inconsequential, but at worst it could be somewhat destructive (to me).

But think about someone who is physically attracted to animals. Or for a better example, someone who suffers from pedophilia. Some pedophiles are actually repulsed by grown women. We recoil at the thought of their acts (and for good reason) but to them it must seem very unfair. They didn't choose to be that way, and aside from a miracle of deliverance they must keep their sexual fantasies to themselves. I don't see a purpose in that. Sorry to compare homosexuality to what most would call a more perverted tendency--if there are levels--but are they really that different? Not to the pedo, I'll bet. I'm just a normal hetero, so I can only imagine.

And just in case there's any confusion (this being a touchy subject), I'm not addressing the rightness or wrongness of people's psychological/sexual bents, only wondering about the why.

A pedophiliac as you describe (as opposed to one who may simply have less of a lower age limit, as it were) is most likely more of an actual disorder than any kind of sexual preference. And I agree, I imagine they probably are tormented at all times be the sheer unfairness of it all.

As for homosexuality, a newer theory is that it has to do with certain hormones in the mother before birth -- part of which is related to if the mother had female children before or not (apparently, a first born son is far more likely to be gay than someone who has older sisters). I occasionally wonder if there's a slight evolutionary standpoint to it, that is, a sort of reaction to the overpopulation of the planet. Many people claim that the same percentage of people have been gay, it's just less of a taboo now, but who knows...
Honestly I kinda agree that there are a wide variance of levels, as well as quite possibly ignorance -- the whole "you don't know if you don't try thing". I read an article about how many teenage girls are becoming bisexual simply because they are trying it and liking it, either because of pressure, or even just the proliferation of porn showing it (which leads to pressure from guys, etc).

I've also seen claimed that as high as /1 in 4/ guys have at some point engaged in some sort of homosexual play. And I believe this was talking in the US even.

There was a time when homosexual behavior was not only accepted and encouraged, but seen as as somehow more sophisticated than heterosexual relations. It's also been absolutely forbidden, then frowned upon, and now kind of not a big deal depending on who you talk to. I'm certainly no anthropologist but I would bet that in the dawn of man--before organized societies and established social normals--"bisexuality" flourished, except that it had no name, no defined conduct, and no repercussions. People diddled other people of either gender because it felt good. I think sexuality at least in part comes from social stigma--somewhere along the line it was decided that one way was good and one way was bad, and having that reinforced and ingrained over thousands of years works into a person's subconscious and nudges them to an established alignment, the influence os powerful that thoughts of dabbling in the other alignment are usually well suppressed, or willfully ignored.

Why gender preference exists on a biological level is not something I can answer, but I reason that rigidly aligning with one gender is in large part a product of society, and that if there were no stigmas in place, there'd be a lot more people identifying themselves as bisexual.