Comment by lukan
9 hours ago
Well, what is natural and where is the line?
We domisticated grazing animals since a while in large numbers, the smaller ones do produce something like a lawn. And soft grass is just really nice to play around with the kids. So I also simply keep bushes and tree spots for the leaves and insects.
It’s not really a complicated philosophical question.
Lawns aren’t native to your area. That type of grass didn’t evolve there, and it didn’t evolve to being trimmed short. That’s why it doesn’t produce seeds and why it’s killed by leaves.
"Lawns aren’t native to your area."
Aside to what the other commentor has said, nature doea not mean static preservation, but it always changed all the time (and we are part of it).
Native and natural in the sense of 'adapted to its environment', not 'static'
Transplanting 'English Manor' grass and lawn practices to a desert creates an unbridgeable adaptation gap. This kind of lawn cannot survive without draining every aquifer in a 300 mile radius. Texas lawns, in particular, yearn for death, you can watch them die in real time.
Lawns that require almost no maintenance using native plants have always been possible, but they don't reflect the class and status dynamics that neighborhoods want to show off.
They'd rather have dying sickly grass most of the year, and pay yearly to to replace, than allow a single 'weed' to be a part of their landscaping.
But where I live there are larges areas of native grass that evolved to being trimmed short by grazers, spreading eagerly through rhizomes as a survival trait because of frequent brush fires. It gets killed by leaves every spring and spreads back by the fall but after a burn the trees are gone and its one of the early succession pioneers. A maintained lawn is just holding a post-burn condition in stasis.
Simplistic answers really work best when things are complicated philosophical questions.