No no no. You don’t get it. Forget the fact that this place reuses water to conserve massive amounts of pipe fed water as most other golf coarses do. Forget the vast amounts of water they use, vs the sustainable model this coarse uses.
The point is, we’re supposed to be MAD!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!
That’s not what we’re talking about. This isn’t part of a city in a well situated area. It’s a resort in a national park. An area that’s supposed to be preserved.
I don’t. Europe has fertile lands and ample water. But I don’t want to contribute to the rising anti-immigrant sentiments when I have no valid reason to emigrate.
If we could financially exploit the desert we’d have companies pushing climate change along. Zero thoughts as to how many people die because of it. Capitalism does not care about people, only profit.
Loved the show Dress to Kill by Eddie Izzard. He thought thru was much better than through coming to the conclusion that through should be pronounced like thruff.
The only reason you pronounce the H is because at some point the brits decided dropping the H made you sound low class. So congrats on perpetuating the elitism
No it isn’t. The letters “gh” doesn’t make the “f” sound without the full “ough”, you can’t just take some of the letters out. Same with the “ti” in “tion”. In addition, words trace their pronunciation from their origin. Words ending in “tion” are latin-derived, and shares an origion with “sion” (Mission, passion) and cion (suspicion). The reason that “ough” sometimes has an “f” sound is that originally it had a glottal stop, like the word “loch” in Scottish, but over time that glottal stop slipped and became an “f”.
The point is, while certain letter sequences have surprising pronunciations in English, you can’t just take those weird pronunciations out of context and create a new word. And you certainly can’t say that “ghoti” is pronounced “fish”.
You are mad and calling this dystopic but ... it's specifically been made to work in its location? Isn't this exactly what we want our environmental changes to support?
Shouldn't this be a sort of utopic example? "Look what we can do if we think carefully about interacting with our environment.'
If it's all lies or something, bring the evidence and I will be there supporting you. Otherwise, what is it you want, exactly?
It doesn’t need to exist. It is a tourist location. That’s why this is here. People charter flights to fly out to there to see Death Valley and play golf at the lowest golf course on Earth. I’m not discontent with a golf course being there, more that people insist on going to see the hottest place in the world and the driest place in North America because there’s more to do that just say, “Hoo boy, sure is pretty and hot and pretty hot.” It just adds to an ever-worsening climate. And, I know…corporations, not people, are mostly responsible for climate change…I get it. But surely there are better uses for this runoff water than a golf course.
If the most reasonable way you can devise to have fun is to charter a flight to the desert and play golf, then I daresay you have a pitifully weak imagination.
You don’t care about the environment. You hate golf. And you picked a site that does everything right and works with the local ecology. It’s a VERY poor example.
Correct. I cannot imagine how installing an air conditioned compound with a swimming pool and a golf course in the middle of the desert could be anything other than ecologically disastrous. But then again, I tend to be skeptical of marketing claims — unlike you, apparently.
I’ll crap down anyone’s throat if it means my life is just a little bit more comfortable. Thank you for empathizing with my plight and arguing that a golf course is more important than public green spaces.
I mean people don’t have to just stay home to get close to a golf course that isn’t *literally siphoning the only source of sustainance for hundreds of miles."
There’s a golf course down the street from me, on a main road to one of two local hospitals, surely you can find one within the nearest 10mi and if you can’t? You probably have bigger things to worry about than swinging a club at a 1inch sphere at your feet.
If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.
If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.
I’m not sure I understand? Did you mean county?
It sounds like this course is located at a natural oasis fed by a natural spring. If the course wasn’t there the water would probably feed some plant life and a bit of wildlife. With proper management it’s likely that their water use is more efficient than it would have been naturally. It isn’t unusual for resource aware golf courses to actually improve biodiversity in a region while being water consumption neutral.
Golf courses aren’t just grass, they plant all sorts of other vegetation, much of it native. This supports native wildlife that wouldn’t otherwise be there.
Have you ever actually been to a responsibly managed golf course? Many in the southwest US are run this way, and tons more are moving in that direction to reduce water use.
Birds, insects, and reptiles are common even in the desert. A species can be native to an ecosystem or region, without naturally occuring in an small locality.
If humans manage water more efficiently than nature would have in this locality, it stands to reason that the resulting local ecosystem would be able to attract and support more native wildlife.
This is observable and provable for golf courses which manage their resources with a focus on limiting their natural resource use and increasing local biodiversity.
You just hate golf courses, which is fine, but you sound pretty uninformed.
Yes, that’s the point. But if you divert the water then you’ve killed them. Bringing in different ones isn’t a value add, it’s just green washing marketing. You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature. The local ecosystem has spent thousands of years developing around that water source.
It’s thinking like yours that got us into the position of having to remove dams and concrete river channels.
You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature
If you actually believe this then there’s nothing anyone can say to help you.
If a naturally occuring spring runs directly into a wide flat area in the middle of the Mojave desert, then it doesn’t naturally reabsorb into the ground as the hard pack just makes it sit on the surface. Since the water is shallow and sitting on the surface, it evaporates instead of being used to water native plants or support native animals.
The golf course in question is not a dam, it’s putting the already available water to use more efficiently. Growing non-native grass, but also native plant species, and providing native insects and animals a way to utilize that water before it would have otherwise evaporated.
Dams destroy native ecosystems by flooding and displacing them, or removing available water downstream. The golf course in question does none of those things.
“Nature is perfect and humans are capable of nothing but destroying it” is a great take BTW. You could have saved a few people some time by leading with that.
Yes. Those first few months of covid showed what we could accomplish if people got their heads of out their asses. Problem is, people like smelling their own shit too much.
You said surely there are better uses, there are, but wouldn’t they bring in more traffic conversely though? No matter what you do, it would be a tourist destination almost definitely. So why not do something to effectively limit the the people that would go there, while also being a pseudo reserve.
Well they’ve also denied an oasis to the entire local ecosystem. They can claim that golf course ponds fulfill the same purpose all they want but nothing wants to live next to golf carts and flying golf balls if it’s big enough to recognize it. People think deserts are wastelands but in reality that water is even more critical because animals can’t just pop a mile down to the next spot. Then there’s the effect on local plants, they’re diverting all of this water and they probably killed the entire local plant system.
Sustainability also means taking care to build in places you won’t impact as much. There’s no world in which growing grass in a desert is sustainable. It doesn’t matter how much technology you throw at it unless you figure out how to get everything you need from the air itself.
Or a disc golf course. I have played golf before and, yes, it is nice to get out into nature, and yes a squarely-hit golf ball feels nice. But it’s no more satisfying a feeling than bowling a strike or spiking a volleyball. There are so many ways to get the feelgoods that don’t require flagrant water waste the way golf courses do.
At this point it’s probably more because grass and dirt is the safest surface for all the old fudds that make up most of the playerbase to fall down on.
I thought it would be interesting to have a negative space golf course, where the entire thing is hard packed sand, except for the rough which is slightly looser sand, and instead of sand traps you have Grass traps, where it’s just a small area with uncut 6-12" tall grass that you need to shoot out of.
You should find a way to always have angry turkeys in the grass traps, kinda like the alligators.
Ooh… and you could do a hole like that crazy island one from Tin Cup, but instead of an island, make a drunk on a jet ski dragging an inter tube behind it.
I’ve never really understood why golf courses always needs to look the same. Wouldn’t they be more exciting if they reflected the local ecology. I’d think it would be more interesting to play a desert course, a swamp course, beach course, forest course, bog course, etc. Then again, golf isn’t exactly known for being an adventurous sport.
Take an existing park/ site/ property / walking trail / hiking trail, and slap some baskets and a few tees (concrete optional in a ~3’x5’ square for the ‘tee’, but a marked off piece of dirt is also acceptable)
Course is in a forest? Better dodge the trees! The course near me encircles soccer fields and a walking path, another one near me follows along a creek.
There are courses that go under power lines and some that are nested away in between buildings.
The Olympic and Titanic were nearly identical, and were based on the same core design. A few alterations were made to Titanic and later on Britannic which were based on experience gained from Olympic’s first year in service. The most noticeable of these was that the forward half of Titanic’s A Deck promenade was enclosed by a steel screen with sliding windows, to provide additional shelter, whereas Olympic’s promenade deck remained open along its whole length. The additional enclosed volume was a major contributor to Titanic’s increased gross register tonnage of 46,328 tons over Olympic’s 45,324 tons, which allowed Titanic to claim the title of largest ship in the world.[35]
Additionally, the B-Deck First-Class promenade decks installed on Olympic had proven to be scarcely used because of the already ample promenade space on A-Deck. Accordingly, Thomas Andrews eliminated this feature on Titanic and built additional, enlarged staterooms with en-suite bathrooms. It also allowed a Café Parisien in the style of a French sidewalk café to be added as an annexe to the À la Carte Restaurant, and for the Restaurant itself to be expanded to the Port-side of the ship. One drawback of this was that the Second-Class promenade space on B-Deck was reduced aboard Titanic.
A reception area for the restaurant was added in the foyer of the B-Deck aft Grand Staircase on Titanic, which did not exist on Olympic, and the main reception room on D-Deck was also slightly enlarged. 50-foot (15 m) private promenade decks were added to the two luxury parlour suites on B-Deck on Titanic, as well as additional First-Class gangway entrances on B-Deck. Cosmetic differences also existed between the two ships, most noticeably concerning the wider use of Axminster carpeting in Titanic’s public rooms, as opposed to the more durable linoleum flooring on Olympic.
Most of these shortcomings on Olympic would be addressed in her 1913 refit, which altered the configuration of Olympic’s First-Class sections to be more like those of Titanic. Although the A-Deck Promenade remained open for the entirety of Olympic’s career, the B-Deck promenade was vetoed and staterooms added like those on Titanic, as well as a Café Parisien and enlarged restaurant. The 1913 refit also included modifications for greater safety after the loss of the Titanic, including the addition of extra lifeboats and the addition of an inner watertight skin in the hull along about half the length of the ship. An extra watertight compartment was added bringing the total of watertight compartments to 17. Five watertight bulkheads were raised to B deck. Along with these improvements there were many others included in the 1913 refit.
lemmy.world
Oldest