It’s logical. It’s actually more reasonable than most common takes on the situation.
You’re splitting hairs on artificial.
Few windows overlook “untouched” nature- manicured yards and managed water ways and features or managed forests and engineered landscapes. Non native plants and species and configurations that wouldn’t generally- in many cases couldn't really be expected to exist in nature. Often fake plants, fake wood, wood veneers and faux finishes. Vinyl made to look like marble, cement made to look like stone.
Hedges to give the illusion that 20-500 feet or so away isn’t another set of windows pointing right at yours.
So what’s more “sad” then? Someone imagining the view they want to see and projecting it as light to the cost of a few kilowatt hours and the manufacture of a device, or someone upending an ecosystem and transporting and having made all manner of physical goods from around the globe to create the illusion that they live in a scenic glade or some such? It’s less about accepting the facade of what the world is vs. seeing “reality” and more about how many resources you want to tie up in creating a facade to satisfy your belief that the lie you have chosen is “real.”
You’re splitting hairs on artificial.
Few windows overlook “untouched” nature- manicured yards and managed water ways and features or managed forests and engineered landscapes. Non native plants and species and configurations that wouldn’t generally- in many cases couldn't really be expected to exist in nature. Often fake plants, fake wood, wood veneers and faux finishes. Vinyl made to look like marble, cement made to look like stone.
Hedges to give the illusion that 20-500 feet or so away isn’t another set of windows pointing right at yours.