[Ghog]

I found this idea particularly intriguing from Bill Mollison's book 'Permaculture-A Designer's Manual'. It is put forth as a directive on the "Law of Return".

"Every object must responsibly provide for its replacement; society must, as a condition of use, replace an equal or greater resource than that used."

Of course we all speak about conserving resources daily in this forum, but what would you think of this as a real Law? Wouldn't this by nature curb needless waste of resources if everyone were held accountable to 'pay back their loan' to nature? I love the principle of this idea, but could it truly be enforced? Would that person still drive their SUV if it meant they must spend the equivalent of 20 hours in the 'fields'?

Just an attempt at a more lighthearted topic. Share your thoughts.

[JudoCow09]

Hello Hybrid. Good Bye SUV.

Think about the world's jobs today. Some people build stuff animals and get payed more than people doing manual labor. Society actually having to do that would certainly weed out the weak.

[evilmonkeyspanker]

This may be just one jerks opnion, how the heck do we pay back nature after gutting her like a pig?

[Ghog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('auctionmonster', 'T')his may be just one jerks opnion, how the heck do we pay back nature after gutting her like a pig?

[JudoCow09]

Sort of like that "make the place cleaner than when you first got there" idea. Apparently we failed that though.

[Ludi]

Mollison intends it to be an ethic, based on values, and enforced by culture or peer pressure, which is far more effective than written laws. The whole idea of permaculture is a new ethic based on diversity and protection of natural systems.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bill Mollison', '"')It is not the purpose of people on earth to reduce all soils to perfectly balanced, well-built,irrigated, and mulched market gardens, although this is achievable and necessary on the 4% of the earth we need for our food production. Thus, what I have to say of soils refers to that 4%, with wider implications only for those soils (60% of all agricultural soils) that we have ruined by the plough or polluted by emissions from cars, sprays, radioactives, and industry.

Our largest job is the restoration of soils and forests for the sake of the healthy earth itself. It is definitely not to clear, deforest, or ruin any more land, but first to put in order what we have destroyed, at the same time attending to the modest area that we need for our survival and full nutrition...

Colin Tudge (New Scientist '86) muses on the proportion of the British Isles that could be given back to nature. He comes down to a very conservative 60%. And at that, without letting go of the misconception that it is agriculture (not individual and market gardening) that will actually provide the future food we eat (a common fallacy). John Jeavons estimates (on the basis of gardens) that we could return perhaps 94% of land to its own purposes."
Mollison pp183-184