[larnmar]

Lawns are aesthetically pleasing to humans.

It has been widely observed that humans, having adapted to life in the African savannah, have a tendency to turn everything into an idealised version of their natural habitat.

Regents Park, or your local golf course, is like a superstimulus version of the nicer parts of prehistoric Kenya. Lots of nice green grass; not too long, indicating grazing animals nearby. Trees scattered around for shade, but not too many. A bunch of clearly visible landmarks for easy navigation. Flowers, indicating... fruit maybe? I’m not sure. Either way, it’s exactly the sort of environment that an omnivorous savannah ape ought to prefer over any other.

Anyway, I like lawns because my genes tell me to like lawns.

[NeedMoreTea]

Hmm. Average golf course is green monoculture that is a blight on landscape and eyesight, as are most lawns. It's the close cutting and grass only. Parks on the other hand have rougher grass in sensible combination with large expanses of trees, maybe a river or lake, flowers, paths, benches. A little oasis of beauty and calm in the ugly, angular city.

To reset my mind I take trees (that often come with some wild meadow and grass), or forest every time. A neatly trimmed lawn is for sports pitches.

[fenwick67]

Do you have anything to back this up or is this just 100% conjecture by you?

[otabdeveloper2]

> Lawns are aesthetically pleasing to humans.

Citation needed. My anecdotal experience doesn't agree.

> It has been widely observed...

Really? By who?

> ...that humans, having adapted to life in the African savannah,

Citation, again, needed. As far as I know, practically no ancient hominid artifacts have been found in the 'African savannah'.

> ...have a tendency to turn everything into an idealised version of their natural habitat.

Except that lawns are absolutely nothing at all like an 'African savannah'. And the fact that the largest part of humanity (India, China) live in habitats that resemble ant hills more than they do a savanna.