The grassy field was there before the panels. It’s overall utility as a grazing field is not reduced by more than a few percent (if panels are built better than in the photo). Structures should definitely always have panels on them but this isn’t that bad.
Comment on Utopia
moonlight@fedia.io 4 days ago
Or the panels could be on existing structures instead of taking up addional space, and we could get our fibers and food from plant sources instead of exploiting animals.
Although this is infinitely better than coal and factory farms.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
4am@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
All that needs to be done here is to make the panels a little taller. Others have already pointed out how partial shade is beneficial to some crops and grass, and reduce water usage. Gazing livestock means no landscaping crews/pollution. This is actually close to ideal in many circumstances.
Aeri@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Claiming that all textiles should be derived exclusively from plants oversimplifies the ecological tradeoffs involved. Animal fibers, particularly wool, are not a major driver of environmental harm compared to many common alternatives.
Wool production relies on sheep that have been selectively bred over centuries to continuously grow fleece. For most modern breeds, regular shearing is not optional; without it, the animals are at risk of heat stress, impaired mobility, skin infections, and parasitic infestations. Shearing itself is not inherently harmful when done correctly and is a routine husbandry practice required for animal welfare rather than an exploitative excess.
There are documented cases of escaped domestic sheep accumulating extreme amounts of fleece over time, resulting in serious health detriment for the animal. These cases illustrate that wool removal is not merely convenient for humans but necessary for animals that can no longer self-regulate their coats in the wild.
From a materials perspective, wool has several environmental advantages. It is biodegradable, long lasting, naturally insulating, odor-resistant, and flame retardant without chemical treatment. In contrast, most synthetic textiles shed microplastics during washing and wear, contributing persistently to aquatic and terrestrial pollution. Even plant based fibers often require intensive land use, water consumption, pesticides, and chemical processing, particularly for crops like cotton.
This of course does not mean wool production is impact free. Poor land management, overgrazing, and methane emissions are real concerns and should be addressed through better agricultural practices rather than ignored. However, when evaluated relative to synthetic textiles and many industrial plant fibers, responsibly produced wool is among the lower-impact options available for clothing. I read that bamboo fiber actually takes an immense amount of water to produce for example.
The broader point I’m trying to establish is that ecological harm is not determined solely by whether a fiber is animal or plant derived.
Durability, biodegradability, land use, chemical inputs, and pollution across the full lifecycle matter more than origin alone. A blanket rejection of animal fibers risks replacing a relatively low-impact material with alternatives that cause greater long-term environmental damage.
moonlight@fedia.io 2 days ago
Well, I wasn't meaning to make the claim that the worst natural fiber is environmentally better than the best animal fiber. I definitely think sustainably farmed natural fibers are still better than using animals, although I am not an expert on the subject. Also not denying that wool clearly is a pretty good material in some ways.
Really, I'm coming at this from an ethical persplective - I don't think we should have livestock at all, and I don't think we should continue to breed domesticated sheep. Also, are they just being sheared, or also killed? (including the children)
And from a land use perspective, it could either be completely natural environment, or usable human space
I think that this sort of thing is way way better than the status quo, but it isn't quite what I would consider utopia