• Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    7 minutes ago

    Devil’s advocate:

    These cost far less to maintain than having a team or two dedicated to upkeep for the trees.

    That said, these things are a terrible idea, clearly the brainchild of techbros, and overall a massive eyesore. Trees are objectively the better option. Just not Bradford Pear trees… Anything but the cum tree.

    • nesc@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      13 hours ago

      These probably require more maintenance and not less, glass needs to be regularly cleaned and water changed and fertilized, what will happen when company stops supporting this proprietary algae aquariums?

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I don’t agree that these are an eyesore, they are not as pretty as a tree, no, but disgustingly ugly? Nah.

      Seems like a decent idea if you have an over developed location where you can’t plant a tree.

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

      The “cost” of maintaining trees is paid by the city to people living, buying things and paying taxes in the city.
      People who don’t have a college education and get to make a living working outside, improving their neighborhood.

      The fake trees are likely put up and maintained by a tech corporation from out of state.