this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
165 points (96.1% liked)

Science

3830 readers
557 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They also use more land for just about every sport and recreational activity that requires a dedicated facility.

Unless the area is out of space, and the golf course existing is the only reason why a given wind/solar project isn't going forward, the comparison is pretty useless.

[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Golf requires over 1600 square meters per player. It is a horribly inefficient use of space. They could be turned into great parks where lots of people could go, but instead only a restricted few are allowed in that area at a time.

At the very least, kick golf courses out of cities. They can be on the outskirts.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They usually are on the outskirts. The land value alone is too high in the city.

Also, not everything has to be about max efficiency. People enjoy golfing, so there should be somewhere for them to golf.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, just ban private and exclusionary clubs and give everyone the right to join and play of they wish. Then its fair.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe it's a location thing, but most courses around me are open to the public. Of the private ones I know of, one is exclusively for the owners of the McMansions on the course itself, and realistically, that would just be a choice between golf course or more McMansions. In that particular case, the golf course is probably the better choice for the environment.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Are they incompatible?

Put a wind turbine on a golf course as a new hazard or something.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

Windmills in mini-golf but for real this time

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Money talks.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Because golf is more important than the environment! /s

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Such an inanely dumb "sport".

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

One was here long af. Other is new.

How can be more if one than the other? :o

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

The one that's been here long af has also been considered to be environmentally and socially problematic for long af.

Golf courses should have been dismantled long ago.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

One costs massive amounts of water to maintain. Other brings free green energy.

How can be more if one than the other? (sic)

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

One is a favorite pasttime of rich (and not onky) folks, one is built only "recently".