Finally, a response that sounds human! Thank you! You asked me to explain, but did not answer my question by clarifying your first reaponse, so it seemed like you were just wasting time. Now that you've explained what you meant by "cope", there is something to discuss.

The reason for my first post is that lawns have very high liability for minmal reward. The typical western culture lawn of today came from suburban planning. Each person had a house, but are packed in tight. As a marketing ploy, the original suburban developments used lawns to mimic French aristocrats that used large lawns as a defense against invading troops (or citizens). This was to give the human sardine a feeling of false regality after their purchase.

The current benefits that people ascribe to lawns are that they are comfortable to walk on, even if most people don't. However, the amount of maintenance, fertilizers, abatement sprays, and water needed is huge compared to ground covers, or moss; which give the same results without the same constraint on funds or time.

Using the same space for growing medicine or food uses less resources, and yields something of value (and you can still zen out). You could have an area that's pleasant to walk on, provides a tangible value, and with more time and money than what a lawn will allow.

So no, I'm not jealous of lawns. They started as a way to sell houses, and the risk-to-reward ratio is horrible compared to food, medicine, or moss.