• Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Devil’s advocate:

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

    That said, I also think trees are the better option. These are an eyesore.

    • nesc@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 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?

      • Lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 minutes ago

        All valid points.

        I was going off the assumption that these are a sort of self-sustaining terrarium.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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
      4 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.