Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: Resource Replenishment Law?
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.
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: Resource Replenishment Law?
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.
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: Resource Replenishment Law?
auctionmonster wrote:
This may be just one jerks opnion, how the heck do we pay back nature after gutting her like a pig?
Raise her piglets? I assume that was <sarcasm> above?
The only 'appology' we can offer to Mother Nature at this point is to repair the damage we have done and 'offer' back to her in excess. Save our species, plant the trees, replenish the soil and stop burning fossil fuels might be a start.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12058 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:53 am Post subject: Re: Resource Replenishment Law?
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.
Bill Mollison wrote:
"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
_________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
