It is said that a few days ago there was a dispute on the BBS at Sanjiao Di. It seems a well-meaning student saw many people trampling the landscaped lawn on Peking University’s campus, went over and said a few words, but the other side paid no attention; the student came back and posted on the BBS to denounce them, and later the person who had actually trampled the lawn also went online to reply. Some even said that lawns are precisely for trampling, and so on.
Exactly right! Lawns are precisely for trampling!
…Why on earth did I actually say something like that? Didn’t I still pride myself on wanting to champion ecological protection?
But if lawns are not for trampling, then what exactly are lawns for?
Greening?
Then what is greening for?
Environmental protection?
Clearly not! Long ago, people already pointed out that the ecological benefits of so-called urban landscaped lawns may actually be negative! Just look at how much water the automatic sprinklers have to gush and spray every day for this tiny, pathetic little patch of lawn. How much can so much lawn really improve air quality? How much can it reduce the green island effect? Can it match the maintenance investment required for these noble grass species? Clearly not! Not only does the lawn fail to protect the environment; rather, it is an immense waste of water resources that are already pitiful enough as it is!
So, does that mean greening is only for appearances? For looking nice?
Then, since it is only for looking at, wouldn’t it be better to put up more paintings, sculptures, and other works of art to look at? Or even better, to imitate those people who paint over barren hills in green, use paint to draw more blue sky, white clouds, and green grass—wouldn’t that look quite nice too, and require far less maintenance?
Ridiculous? Must one use real plants for greening in order for it to look nice? Why do urban dwellers still need to see real plants? Because that is “nature”?
How could that possibly be “nature”? Where in nature do you find greening arranged so neatly and orderly? So-called “greening” is by no means naturalization; of course, it is still a part of urban planning. It is human beings using the vitality of nature to serve themselves and to create an environment for themselves. It is only a matter of making nature subordinate to humans, and certainly not of making humans return to nature!
All right, isn’t the lawn just there to create atmosphere? Then if it is not for people to trample on, what use does it have?
“Protect the greenery”? On what grounds do we say that? If we are talking about protecting green plants, that is fair enough. But so-called “protect the greenery” can at most be only part of “protect public property,” and has no higher significance whatsoever. It has even less to do with reverence for nature or cherishing ecology.
In nature’s meadows, are they only allowed to be looked at and not stepped on?
Meadows in nature have long formed a relationship of mutual dependence with animals—and even with nomadic human beings—through long-term coexistence. Meadows always need to be trampled and eaten by certain hoofed animals from time to time; without appropriate disturbance, the grass will grow too densely and exceed the limits of environmental carrying capacity, eventually failing to grow well. This is similar to the way that exterminating wolves, far from helping, is actually detrimental to the survival of sheep. That is the ecological principle: lawns are meant to be stepped on!
If artificial lawns are expected to play even a small role in cultivating urban dwellers’ sense of closeness to nature, then if people are not allowed to step on them, if they are not allowed to use their own bodies to feel the scent of earth and the cool freshness of green grass, if they are not allowed, amidst busy lives, to lie on the grass and enjoy a moment of leisure, then what meaning do lawns have at all?
May 6, 2007, 5:30 p.m.
Latest comments
mist
2007-05-09 23:02:36 Anonymous 124.17.16.66 [Reply]
Hehe, report report, the three of you should each report me once吧：）
gu di
2007-05-09 22:53:09 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
Hehe, you’ve had it tough all by yourself…
Oh right, yesterday I saw that the dormitory hygiene inspection after I left actually scored 95 points… I was rather moved…
mist
2007-05-09 22:41:26 Anonymous 124.17.16.66 [Reply]
We’ll clean the whole car tonight, and you, Fei, and Wang Pang will escape this disaster~~
gu di
2007-05-09 22:06:38 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
To UNIC: when I was in junior high, there was a period when I also particularly agreed with obeying rules, and especially emphasized obeying rules. Later I not only reflected on what rules actually are, but also reflected on why I wanted so much to obey rules. I think it may have come from some kind of desire for the rationality and consistency of my own behavior; I wanted some consistent thing to guide my behavior. But later I realized that to act by submitting to external rules is not practical reason at all; on the contrary, it is irrationality, the laziness of reason. Rules are in one’s own heart; one need not seek them outside oneself. Only consistency obtained through continuous self-reflection is rational and free; consistency constrained by external rules is nothing more than a kind of mechanicalness.
gu di
2007-05-09 21:41:26 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
Mist says it well: rules are for being respected, not for being obeyed…
If some rules come with punitive measures, such as laws, then they tell you what consequences will follow if you do not obey them. And you can choose to obey them and have peace under heaven, or choose to violate them and “bear the consequences yourself.”
But other rules do not come with punitive measures, such as “No parking bicycles here,” “No entry,” and so on. What they express is nothing more than a demand for respect. I can choose to respect them, or not to respect them. And I personally think that Peking University belongs to the teachers and students of Peking University, not to the “management team of around 800 people.” To be frank, I lack respect for the university’s administrative personnel, and as for certain rules, then…
gu di
2007-05-09 21:30:21 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
Peking University has always been a place with a tradition of not keeping to the rules; just look at how the bicycles are always most numerous beneath those “No parking bicycles here” signs… Presumably the university administration itself never took these rules too seriously either.
As for what exactly was being discussed on the BBS, I actually never even looked; I just heard you, Mist, mention it and used the topic to launch into this digression.
ps: Wu Mei is still pretty good; some things, such as yogurt, are even cheaper than Carrefour, and the key point is that the three bookstores inside are truly excellent.
mist
2007-05-09 21:16:40 Anonymous 124.17.16.66 [Reply]
If you are dissatisfied with a rule and think it unreasonable, you can request the issuing party to revise it, but before the revision is completed, the rule should still receive at least basic respect—otherwise it is not a society ruled by law but a society ruled by persons.
For some rules that go too far, we can gather people to protest, but we must pay attention to the target of the protest and not hurt the innocent.
For example, if a school regulation says that the teaching building must be locked after 10 p.m. and no students may stay inside to study, even if we think it is unsatisfactory, we can’t just smash all the tables, doors, and windows, can we?
ps, because the decision is made by the university administration, students have very little power, and the student union and the Youth League committee are hailed as the “mafia,” so basically students’ suggestions are rarely accepted—unless they can unite, such as “the Higher Education Student Federation”
UNIC
2007-05-09 19:59:49 Anonymous 222.82.78.97 [Reply]
The university administration’s considerations… why should we have to go along with the university administration’s considerations?!
UNIC
2007-05-09 19:57:10 Anonymous 222.82.78.97 [Reply]
TO MIST, in the past I was very much in favor of obeying rules, but later, thinking it over, some rules are not rules at all, but regulations! They are man-made; not all regulations are reasonable. I think, therefore, that we should reflect on the regulations around us, and also on why we simply obey them. Why do people who do not obey them make us angry?
mist
2007-05-09 13:29:34 Anonymous 124.17.16.66 [Reply]
As for the former site of Beixin, perhaps we can consider why the university administration did not build a canteen or supermarket there, but left it as a lawn.
One reason is to make future planning easier. If the campus layout needs to be replanned later, then a lawn is much more flexible than a canteen or supermarket—after all, if it is torn down and rebuilt, I suspect a whole group of stubborn holdouts from the Beixin canteen or supermarket would come out making trouble again.
If it were already planned now and a canteen or supermarket were built there. Then after the canteen or supermarket is built, would that really make things more convenient for students? I rather think it would make things more convenient for the merchants. As for supermarkets, Beixin’s profiteering is infamous; BoShi and Wu Mei are not much better. As for canteens, students also have plenty of complaints. Building a supermarket or canteen would, at most, merely create yet another place where everyone can go be exploited and oppressed.
There was once a joke: the simplest way to solve all evil in the world is to exterminate humankind, and then evil would no longer exist—presumably the university administration’s considerations are similar. Without canteens and supermarkets, let’s see what else the students can possibly be dissatisfied with~~
mist
2007-05-09 13:17:28 Anonymous 124.17.16.66 [Reply]
Uh. The bridge of the nose is for wearing glasses~
Whether human behavior counts as damage to the environment is a question. Yellowstone National Park in the United States adopts a nonintervention policy. If a fire breaks out in the park, the management lets the fire burn naturally—because they believe that naturally occurring fires are also a spontaneous measure by nature to regulate ecological balance. Then why forcibly separate human behavior from nature’s spontaneous regulatory measures? Why not also regard human behavior as a spontaneous regulation of nature? I think it is mostly because humans presume themselves to be rational and different from all other things. Therefore, in the best of paradises, there is no place for humans.
If one insists on saying that lawns are for x, then I would think that lawns are for cows and sheep to eat, for insects to create a growth environment for themselves… and so on. In the face of nature, human beings have no great superiority. Children may be clever, or they may be dull; but parents still love them. Even with differences, one would not sacrifice the dull children because one loves the clever ones. Perhaps humans are only the relatively clever children of nature.
The BBS argument was not about whether lawns should be stepped on, but whether rules should be obeyed—the lawn in question had a sign prohibiting trampling on it, and the person involved still refused to leave after being told that such a sign existed. What made people angry was the theater troupe’s few classmates’ lack of respect for the rules and their flattering of Americans of Chinese descent.
gu di
2007-05-08 20:53:38 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
After thinking it over and over, I still cannot accept the accusation that “not everything can withstand this kind of ideal analysis.”
Our needs are a question of “reality,” but are ecological problems and the water crisis issues of “idealism”? Which problem is more real? Do I need to eat, or is my house on fire?
What I am discussing here is not philosophy at all; the issue I am talking about is very concrete, and can even be very specific, to the point of “Should grass be planted on the west side outside Peking University’s south gate?”
The area outside Peking University’s south gate was still in the middle of a dispute when I entered the university. It seemed to be an enforced demolition; the two sides were at loggerheads, the houses had been torn down halfway, and it looked a complete mess. It was said that they had been at it for years, and it became one of Peking University’s sights. And now it seems it has finally been resolved, becoming a small lawn.
Also, the “Beixin Supermarket” inside Peking University, which was still around when I entered the school, also ran into conflict in the last couple of years. All the employees unfurled long banners reading “We want human rights, we want to live,” hanging them one by one outside the store; it was a mess for quite a while, and that too was only resolved not long ago. The result was that the supermarket was torn down, and it became—again—a patch of grass!
At the time, some students said that the canteens on campus were already so crowded that they should build another canteen, or if not, at least build a supermarket and sell some snacks too; who knows whose plan this was, in any case, it ended up being a lawn!
To be honest, I rather do miss that chaotic scene from back then. It truly had a distinctive character. Peking University could actually leave such two glaring messes lying there and be too lazy to deal with them; that too counts as a kind of personality, doesn’t it? And now? Two lawns! Dozens of sprinklers spraying water there all day long, and that’s what looks nice?—http://foto.yculblog.com/epr/DSCF0132.jpg To be honest, I think it is not as good-looking as the pile of rubble that was there before!
“https://yilinhut.net/about/wo”>gu di
2007-05-08 11:51:44 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
A pile of weeds cannot satisfy people’s needs, so it is bad. A lawn satisfies people’s needs, so it is good. This logic is a human-centered + capitalist way of thinking, and one of the culprits behind the ecological crisis.
Does the world just naturally and as a matter of course have to be transformed according to human needs?
Then if people also need gambling, prostitution, drugs, or even slaves, why not build a few more casinos and brothels? Why not preserve slavery? Isn’t that ridiculous to say? But this too satisfies people’s needs, doesn’t it? What’s the difference? Because it violates ethics and morality? Therefore, I want to study ecological ethics (environmental ethics). Environmental problems cannot be solved by economic planning alone; human “needs” are not all things that ought to be satisfied. Some needs violate ethics.
gu di
2007-05-08 11:34:09 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
The person above speaks well. I am doing analysis, but I do not know whether it counts as “ideal analysis.”
To say that because we know we need lawns, therefore we should make lawns, is unreasonable. We need resources, we need food, we need zoos… The ecological environment is precisely being damaged because of our “needs.” What I want to ask is: why do we need lawns?
I did not say we should not advocate “protecting the greenery,” but I think “protect the greenery” is nothing more than a part of “protect public property,” and has no higher or deeper significance.
The design of lawns ought to be open; I very much agree with that.
still a cat
2007-05-08 11:17:40 Anonymous 219.137.210.96 [Reply]
It seems quite reasonable, but I think not everything can withstand this kind of ideal analysis.
Speaking realistically, we need greenery, trees, and lawns in our living environment. If we plant them artificially, I think that given the current state of our cities, even without excessive reclamation and overgrazing, there still won’t be much grass that can grow into a “lawn.” A pile of weeds growing on land left idle by developers cannot satisfy people’s needs either. So we need to lay turf artificially. As for which species to lay, the ratio of grass to trees, how to save costs while still achieving the effect—these issues can be discussed separately. At least we know that we need lawns, but with our population, if people can trample them at will, they will absolutely be trampled away; so restricting trampling and advocating protection is necessary.
However, I oppose fencing the lawn off. I suggest that when designing it, one should leave some paths so that people can go in, sit for a while, lie down for a while, and enjoy a moment of leisure.
As I’m talking, I feel I’m becoming foolish too: what kind of trampling counts as protective use? I think the proper degree is different in everyone’s mind, and as for the final result, it must be the combined force of a number of people, so it is difficult to rely on any single person’s self-restraint alone, even after comprehensive consideration.
Is it all said in vain, and all thought in vain?
gu di
2007-05-06 18:41:36 http://epr.ycool.com/ [Reply]
What I was mainly talking about was urban lawns, especially those imported noble grass species that still require automatic sprinklers to water them every day, along with maintenance and trimming to make them neat and beautiful. That grass is almost more precious than the turf on a football field. Speaking of which, isn’t the turf on a football field precisely there to be stepped on by people wearing studs? When city planning also involves lawns, it would be better to make more areas for people to step on. If they really get stepped on too much, that means there are many people who want to get close to greenery, and that is a good thing. Moreover, the reason ordinary lawns are forbidden to be stepped on is not, generally speaking, that people might trample the whole lawn bare; presumably it is because they fear it would be stepped on here and there, revealing patches of bald ground and looking unsightly.
As for why natural grasslands are damaged, of course it is not because too many people trampled them beyond capacity; obviously it is due to over-cultivation and overgrazing and the like. That is another question.
UNIC
2007-05-06 17:57:42 Anonymous 222.82.72.8 [Reply]
But there are so many Chinese people. What if it gets trampled too much?
gu di
Oh right, yesterday I saw that the dormitory hygiene inspection after I left actually scored 95 points… I was rather moved…
mist
gu di
gu di
If some rules come with punitive measures, such as laws, then they tell you what consequences will follow if you do not obey them. And you can choose to obey them and have peace under heaven, or choose to violate them and “bear the consequences yourself.”
But other rules do not come with punitive measures, such as “No parking bicycles here,” “No entry,” and so on. What they express is nothing more than a demand for respect. I can choose to respect them, or not to respect them. And I personally think that Peking University belongs to the teachers and students of Peking University, not to the “management team of around 800 people.” To be frank, I lack respect for the university’s administrative personnel, and as for certain rules, then…
gu di
As for what exactly was being discussed on the BBS, I actually never even looked; I just heard you, Mist, mention it and used the topic to launch into this digression.
ps: Wu Mei is still pretty good; some things, such as yogurt, are even cheaper than Carrefour, and the key point is that the three bookstores inside are truly excellent.
mist
For some rules that go too far, we can gather people to protest, but we must pay attention to the target of the protest and not hurt the innocent.
For example, if a school regulation says that the teaching building must be locked after 10 p.m. and no students may stay inside to study, even if we think it is unsatisfactory, we can’t just smash all the tables, doors, and windows, can we?
ps, because the decision is made by the university administration, students have very little power, and the student union and the Youth League committee are hailed as the “mafia,” so basically students’ suggestions are rarely accepted—unless they can unite, such as “the Higher Education Student Federation”
UNIC
UNIC
mist
One reason is to make future planning easier. If the campus layout needs to be replanned later, then a lawn is much more flexible than a canteen or supermarket—after all, if it is torn down and rebuilt, I suspect a whole group of stubborn holdouts from the Beixin canteen or supermarket would come out making trouble again.
If it were already planned now and a canteen or supermarket were built there. Then after the canteen or supermarket is built, would that really make things more convenient for students? I rather think it would make things more convenient for the merchants. As for supermarkets, Beixin’s profiteering is infamous; BoShi and Wu Mei are not much better. As for canteens, students also have plenty of complaints. Building a supermarket or canteen would, at most, merely create yet another place where everyone can go be exploited and oppressed.
There was once a joke: the simplest way to solve all evil in the world is to exterminate humankind, and then evil would no longer exist—presumably the university administration’s considerations are similar. Without canteens and supermarkets, let’s see what else the students can possibly be dissatisfied with~~
mist
Whether human behavior counts as damage to the environment is a question. Yellowstone National Park in the United States adopts a nonintervention policy. If a fire breaks out in the park, the management lets the fire burn naturally—because they believe that naturally occurring fires are also a spontaneous measure by nature to regulate ecological balance. Then why forcibly separate human behavior from nature’s spontaneous regulatory measures? Why not also regard human behavior as a spontaneous regulation of nature? I think it is mostly because humans presume themselves to be rational and different from all other things. Therefore, in the best of paradises, there is no place for humans.
If one insists on saying that lawns are for x, then I would think that lawns are for cows and sheep to eat, for insects to create a growth environment for themselves… and so on. In the face of nature, human beings have no great superiority. Children may be clever, or they may be dull; but parents still love them. Even with differences, one would not sacrifice the dull children because one loves the clever ones. Perhaps humans are only the relatively clever children of nature.
The BBS argument was not about whether lawns should be stepped on, but whether rules should be obeyed—the lawn in question had a sign prohibiting trampling on it, and the person involved still refused to leave after being told that such a sign existed. What made people angry was the theater troupe’s few classmates’ lack of respect for the rules and their flattering of Americans of Chinese descent.
gu di
Our needs are a question of “reality,” but are ecological problems and the water crisis issues of “idealism”? Which problem is more real? Do I need to eat, or is my house on fire?
What I am discussing here is not philosophy at all; the issue I am talking about is very concrete, and can even be very specific, to the point of “Should grass be planted on the west side outside Peking University’s south gate?”
The area outside Peking University’s south gate was still in the middle of a dispute when I entered the university. It seemed to be an enforced demolition; the two sides were at loggerheads, the houses had been torn down halfway, and it looked a complete mess. It was said that they had been at it for years, and it became one of Peking University’s sights. And now it seems it has finally been resolved, becoming a small lawn.
Also, the “Beixin Supermarket” inside Peking University, which was still around when I entered the school, also ran into conflict in the last couple of years. All the employees unfurled long banners reading “We want human rights, we want to live,” hanging them one by one outside the store; it was a mess for quite a while, and that too was only resolved not long ago. The result was that the supermarket was torn down, and it became—again—a patch of grass!
At the time, some students said that the canteens on campus were already so crowded that they should build another canteen, or if not, at least build a supermarket and sell some snacks too; who knows whose plan this was, in any case, it ended up being a lawn!
To be honest, I rather do miss that chaotic scene from back then. It truly had a distinctive character. Peking University could actually leave such two glaring messes lying there and be too lazy to deal with them; that too counts as a kind of personality, doesn’t it? And now? Two lawns! Dozens of sprinklers spraying water there all day long, and that’s what looks nice?—http://foto.yculblog.com/epr/DSCF0132.jpg To be honest, I think it is not as good-looking as the pile of rubble that was there before!
“https://yilinhut.net/about/wo”>gu di
Does the world just naturally and as a matter of course have to be transformed according to human needs?
Then if people also need gambling, prostitution, drugs, or even slaves, why not build a few more casinos and brothels? Why not preserve slavery? Isn’t that ridiculous to say? But this too satisfies people’s needs, doesn’t it? What’s the difference? Because it violates ethics and morality? Therefore, I want to study ecological ethics (environmental ethics). Environmental problems cannot be solved by economic planning alone; human “needs” are not all things that ought to be satisfied. Some needs violate ethics.
gu di
To say that because we know we need lawns, therefore we should make lawns, is unreasonable. We need resources, we need food, we need zoos… The ecological environment is precisely being damaged because of our “needs.” What I want to ask is: why do we need lawns?
I did not say we should not advocate “protecting the greenery,” but I think “protect the greenery” is nothing more than a part of “protect public property,” and has no higher or deeper significance.
The design of lawns ought to be open; I very much agree with that.
still a cat
Speaking realistically, we need greenery, trees, and lawns in our living environment. If we plant them artificially, I think that given the current state of our cities, even without excessive reclamation and overgrazing, there still won’t be much grass that can grow into a “lawn.” A pile of weeds growing on land left idle by developers cannot satisfy people’s needs either. So we need to lay turf artificially. As for which species to lay, the ratio of grass to trees, how to save costs while still achieving the effect—these issues can be discussed separately. At least we know that we need lawns, but with our population, if people can trample them at will, they will absolutely be trampled away; so restricting trampling and advocating protection is necessary.
However, I oppose fencing the lawn off. I suggest that when designing it, one should leave some paths so that people can go in, sit for a while, lie down for a while, and enjoy a moment of leisure.
As I’m talking, I feel I’m becoming foolish too: what kind of trampling counts as protective use? I think the proper degree is different in everyone’s mind, and as for the final result, it must be the combined force of a number of people, so it is difficult to rely on any single person’s self-restraint alone, even after comprehensive consideration.
Is it all said in vain, and all thought in vain?
gu di
As for why natural grasslands are damaged, of course it is not because too many people trampled them beyond capacity; obviously it is due to over-cultivation and overgrazing and the like. That is another question.
UNIC
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply