But just as lawns are useless, they are also harmful. Shaved lawns disrupt wildlife habitats, maintenance chemicals runoff into surrounding waterways, and a substantial amount of resources are utilized. As previously but briefly mentioned, the grass that now grows on American lawns never naturally grew in North America. Kentucky Bluegrass, Bermuda grass, and Zoysia grass are native to Europe and Northern Asia, Africa, and East Asia, respectively (Kolbert, 2008). Because growing this invasive species in dissimilar foreign climates depends “on the overcoming of local conditions” (Pollan, 1989), heavy maintenance is required to keep lawns green. In addition to producing universally viable grass, German chemist Fritz Haber, while developing weapon systems, synthesized ammonia: the “evergreen” fertilizer (Kolbert, 2008). In 1918, he won the Nobel Prize for his invention (“Fritz Haber – Biographical,” n.d.). Three decades later, at the height of World War II, American scientists synthesized a highly effective herbicide, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d acid), which served a major component of carcinogenic Agent Orange (Kolbert, 2008). Both were eventually outlawed, but even the chemicals in use now can still contaminate waterways and entire ecosystems. These chemicals are extremely harmful to natural environments, wildlife habitats, and water sources. Additionally, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States uses up to nine billion gallons of water per day to maintain green lawn cover (Garber, 2015). Nearly one-third of residential water is allocated to landscaping and lawn maintenance, as imported grasses require more water than natural rainfall provides (Garber, 2015; Kolbert, 2008). But it’s not just wasteful watering practices or detrimental chemicals that harm natural environments: mowing lawns contribute not only to resource consumption, it exacerbates large-scale environmental problems. Of the eight-hundred-plus million gallons of gasoline that Americans use annually for lawnmowers, seventeen million gallons are outright spilled, and the emissions from the clunky machines contribute to five percent of urban air pollution (Baker, 2015). Landscape architect Terry Ryan, of Jacobs/Ryan Associates, calls this “a poor use of resources” (Borrelli, 2017).

But “the urge to dominate nature is a deeply human one, and lawn mowing answers to it” (Pollan, 1989), and Americans do not seem to be pressed to change their lawn practices. Lawn mowing may be here to stay, but it may only inhibit healthy lawn environments. Trimmed grass is deprived of natural reproduction, an asexual process, and is stuck in a “perpetual state of vegetable adolescence;” this is simply “nature purged of sex and death” (Pollan, 1989). Leaving no inch to grow wildly nor reproduce, as a member of the English Parliament and agricultural writer William Cobbett once observed, lawns are “as barren as the sea beach” (Pollan, 1989). American lawns are void of any natural thicket, weed, or blossoming flower that makes nature, well, nature. Trimmed short, lawns cannot support wildlife, as migratory species need a “continuous habitat to thrive” (Baker, 2015). No weed, no bee, no possum live in the lawn. But the American lawn is “a symptom of, and a metaphor for, our skewed relationship to the land” (Pollan, 1989). In the eternal struggle of culture against nature, culture prevails via machines stifling the natural rejuvenating process. However, “if we allow ourselves to see a mowed lawn for what it is – a green desert that provides no food or shelter for wildlife – we can recondition ourselves to take pride in not mowing” (Baker, 2015).

This would be a push against more than a century of traditional, uniform lawns covering communities. Neighbors, like Jay Gatsby, would be discontent, but what is the United States without exceptional individualism? The lawn has transitioned from an elite commodity to an egalitarian and unifying staple of the American landscape, but unbounded egalitarianism has led to coerced conformity. This mindless conformity afforded to the landscape industry a mass market. Just over seventy-five percent of American homes have lawns that require maintenance (Brown, 2011). The amount that Americans spend on lawn care has declined over the past three decades, but still, upwards of $20 billion is spent annually (Garber, 2015; Kolbert, 2008; Pollan, 1989). Through matriculated ordinances and ostracizing communities, lawns are inexorably well-kept. Although the green expanse of lawns may seem egalitarian, the required maintenance depends on our continued subordination to the lawn industry, under the guise of our mastery of our home environment.

The domination of our environment comes with deserved retribution. Wildlife becomes scarce, resources are depleted, and individualism conforms. Is there something that the American citizen can do to resist this ecologically damaging, boring, and coerced habitat to which we have been committed? In this ubiquitous landscape, Bruce Butterfield of the National Garden Association poses the problem at hand:

“How do we approach this in a balanced way so our landscape looks good and is good for the plants and earthworms and animals and people? Because for many people in America, it’s not a choice whether they’re going to have a lawn, it’s ‘how are we going to manage it?’”

(Brown, 2011).

How indeed? Well, one could work to maintain their trimmed lawn, apply fertilizer for a vibrant green, perhaps all year long, and spend a fortune throughout their entire ownership of their yard. However, Steve Schneider of the Arnold Arboretum at Harvard University notes, “When people think their lawns don’t look good, it’s often not because of grubs or insects or weeds, it’s because of poor watering and mowing practices. But people don’t realize this, and tend to water more and fertilize more” (Brown, 2011). But perhaps there is a better option, one where these empty shrines to conformity can have a purpose, grow wildly, and be sustainable.

The anti-lawn movement started in the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 70s. Rachel Carson’s 1962 manifesto Silent Spring and Lorrie Otto’s “Wild Ones” organization were some of the first to nationally denounce the purposelessness and harmfulness of lawns (Kolbert, 2008). In 1993, Yale University ecologists published Redesigning the American Lawn: A Search for Environmental Harmony. This book promoted, in lieu of expansive greenery, “freedom lawns” (Kolbert, 2008). Instead of boring, conforming lawns, “freedom lawns” are natural gardens, often with either tall grass or green cover that naturally grows shortly, like thyme, chamomile, and mint (Brown, 2011). Grass or green cover in its natural state requires less frequent watering and, if one were to mow, should do so infrequently and use a push lawnmower only. Most importantly, the cornerstone of freedom lawns is the rejection of chemical herbicides and pesticides (Kolbert, 2008). This practice allows for different plants, animals, and bugs to thrive, all part of a healthy ecosystem. Although overgrown grass and an abundance of pests may not seem aesthetically appealing, thriving freedom lawns are healthier than chemical-laden evergreen grass lawns.