• @[email protected]English
    30•5 months ago

    “But there will be bugs, and what about my allergies!”

    I have a suspicion that a ton of allergies are the result of avoiding nature except where it is a mono culture like lawns and three plant landscaping where the body only adapts to a limited number of irritants and overreacts for others.

    • @[email protected]English
      25•5 months ago

      Fun fact: many cities had issues with female fruiting trees because their fruits would rot on the ground, causing bad smells and rodents. So they replaced them with male trees.

      Unfortunately for allergy sufferers, this increased pollen counts exponentially. But that’s not all. Because these trees can “sense” that they are competing with other male trees, they produce even more pollen than they normally would.

      Edit: My information is outdated! It was based on an article that I read back in the early 2000s and it looks like it’s been debunked.

      • @FireRetardantEnglish
        2•5 months ago

        Would it have been possible to pay a crew to clean up the fruits?

        • @[email protected]English
          8•5 months ago

          In an age where cities are getting less and less tax revenue, replanting new trees that don’t fruit is often more cost effective in the long run.

          And even if you did hire a crew, they aren’t going to get every piece of rotted fruit. Animals, being what they are, will bury or hide them.

      • @[email protected]English
        2•5 months ago

        This is only partially true. Not all trees, and not even most trees, have exclusively one gender. There’s not that much scientific evidence supporting your claim of a conscious effort to plant certain gendered trees resulting in exponentially higher levels of pollen