[csdvrx]

> If nobody bought them, they wouldn’t be planted in the first place, so the act of cutting down then disposing of a Christmas tree has no net impact to the overall tree population

From a carbon capture perspective, you could argue planting, cutting then burying trees is a net positive - but cutting is killing.

From a moral perspective, financially helping an industry based on planting and cutting trees while not using them for shelter (wood is used in housing) or even heat (in a stove or a fireplace) strikes me as barbaric, because it's the purposeless killing of a living creature.

Killing and eating animals (if not vegan) or plants (if vegan) is necessary as we can't opt out of food (but maybe there will be a fully synthetic replacement someday)

Yet I can opt out of killing trees for ornamental purposes - and this tech may help other people save trees, if they can't opt out of having a live Christmas tree, say for cultural or familial reasons (tradition, etc)

[fy20]

After Christmas they don't just end up in the landfill. They are often recycled into mulch. The material used for mulch needs to come from somewhere... So better for the tree to bring some joy in someone's home temporarily rather than just growing and being cut down.

[csdvrx]

I would find it morally better if mulch could be made from leaves collected in the fall, but knowing about this recycling helps think more positively about the cutting.

Thank you.

[chpatrick]

Luckily trees' whole purpose in life is for their offspring to grow so we're doing them a favor.