this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
61 points (82.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26980 readers
1397 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hope@lemmy.world 64 points 1 week ago

Well for starters, at least one famous economist would be discredited.

A meme saying "Could Autumn leaves soon be worth more than gold?" at the top, followed by pictures of leaves and a gold bar. At the bottom is a caption saying "A famous economist says 'what the ****? No, why would they be?'"

[–] je_skirata@lemmy.today 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How can it be valuable when there's so many dead leaves? Unless you mean to say they become exceedingly rare, in which case the ecosystem is screwed.

[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That rules out the onvious... plant a fuck ton of Japanese maples. Whatever it is giving them value, the little weed shaped leaves are guna be top dog.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Size indicates value. You just planted pennies :p

[–] 11111one11111@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Gotta have something growing under the Elms and real Maples. Shiiit if the Japanese Maples are putting out 20:1 leaves of the big leafers and the big leafers are a buck then I might be better off planting 5 Lil Japanese Maples per big leafer.

Really tho the money is in the purple leaf Maples. Those fuckers make it rain leaves, are dwarves of pure Maples but still bigger than Japanese (idk if those are even real maple trees). Best of all tho, all their leaves are the same size as pure maple trees.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Nobody specified the value per leaf. Even if it was 1 cent per leaf people would be planting fuckloads of trees just to make money of the leaves every year.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

People would start killing trees for the dead leaves.
Unfortunately I don't think I'm even being cynical.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

We will trees for lumber. This isn't cynical at all.

Edit: idk if I meant kill trees or will cut trees lol.

[–] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago

No, you'll trees.

[–] Bezier@suppo.fi 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You don't need to axe murder the tree to get leaves. I expect it to be more economically sustainable to keep your tree alive.

Lumber is the body, so not killing the tree is kinda off the table.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are old methods of getting lumber from trees by cutting them short and letting the limbs grow back. The Japanese “daisugi” and European “copsing” are two different styles of the same idea. The fact that we don’t see those done much in the modern era makes me think that the industrial-capitalist mind would not comprehend the idea of waiting for leaves to fall.

More likely, daisugi/copsing just doesn't yield enough to meet demand.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

But leaves are suuuuuuuper valuable now.

[–] Libb@jlai.lu 2 points 1 week ago

Alas, I don't think that's being cynical at all. Or maybe I'm, too?

[–] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago

Immediate inflation is what would happen.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It would have a devastating effect on the eco system, since many flora and fauna depend on those leaves (for shelter, to feed on, to hunt in, to lay eggs on), and many more flora and fauna depend on those that depend on the leaves, and capitalism doesn't give a fuck so the leaves would promptly be removed from the environment by one corporation or another so that they can profit, and we'd be fucked even further.

[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In short time the only trees allowed would be on corporate property. They would grow rows of one type of gmo trees with maximized leaf growing ability. They would use leaves to pay wage slaves to harvest leaves.

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They would use leaves to pay wage slaves to harvest leaves.

Wage Slave: Please sir, my family is starving.

Corpo: Silence! You know the punishment for theft.

Wage Slave: But sir! In a single 14 hour shift, me and my coworkers bring in an average of 1.2 tons of dead leaves a day. It costs but a handful of leaves to feed my children, and a small paper bag to house them.

Corpo: Ah, so you know of your costs, yes. But you think not of the costs for those who would pay you. My costs are numerous, and if I am to pay you, and pay still more of your coworkers, they must first be met, and met in full.

WS: You are right, sir, of course. Forgive me, for I know not the burdens beared by those cursed with fortune.

C: Then allow me to educate you! Your coworkers and you bring to me 1.2 tons of leaves everyday. Every day! Do you know the cost of storing 1.2 tons of leaves?

WS: I have never had the leaves necessary to warrant storage, sir. What a burden this must be.

C: A burden, yes! And what's more! If I am to leave my leaves unattended, who is to say the likes of you won't come in the night to take what I have rightfully earned?

WS: Another thought a stranger to me, sir, for I have naught the possessions to fear theft, save for which I have thusly stolen from you.

C: Indeed! And lucky you should feel to be worry free of thievery! And finally. Why is it, do you think, that not everyone grows their own trees, farms their own leaves?

WS: This I do know, sir! This is the law of the land!

C: The law of the land, precisely. But the law does not avail itself cheaply to those who have; nay, for those burdened with the curse of fortune, justice is bought, and bought with deep pockets. For the cost of justice far exceeds the cost of storage, the cost of vigilance, even the cost of labor (which, as a laborer yourself, I need not remind you is exorbitantly high!).

WS: I have never thought to purchase a law before.

C: And it is my wish that you never shall. Great are the troubles of those forced into my position. This is why you must toil, why the days must grow longer and the suppers fewer and further in between, why those who have must always have, and those who don't must never receive; lest you be faced with the ugly wrath of capitalism.

WS: Capitalism! Gods, anything but that!

C: So you see now, Wage Slave, why you must accept this punishment for reaching out to the forbidden fruit.

WS: Please, sir, a decade of unpaid labor is but a gift to someone like me, who was but this close to falling into the clutches of prosperity!

C: Go, then, and sow for me now what I shall later have you reap.

WS: May I sow the same field you have my children working?

C: No.

WS: Thank you!

[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Bravo! My first accidental writing prompt. :)

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Thanks! Your comment painted a very vivid picture for me and I wanted to have fun with it.

[–] ninja@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”

Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.

“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut."

Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down. “So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and. . .er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances."

The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants among them looked forward to a profitable autumn aloft and it got an appreciative round from the crowd.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I literally don't know if you made this up or if it's actually from a book.

Either way... Well done

[–] zzx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It's from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

[–] Teddy@programming.dev 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That is a minor plot point in The Restaurant at The End of The Universe by Douglas Adams.

::: spoiler

They propose & implement a defoilage campaign to combat inflation. :::

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

Time to burn down some forests to save the economy and start a job as a telephone disinfectant

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Then money really would grow on trees.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

The only way I can see that happening is if ailiens get in touch asking to buy them.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I’d wish you a good harvest this fall!

[–] grasshopper_mouse@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I would be rich as fuck

[–] DBT@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I’d finally clean my gutters.

Maybe next weekend….

[–] DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Trees would lose all their leaves as people pick them off and let them die in a bag somewhere

[–] LemmyBe@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People would start cutting down trees and plants so they could have more. Then that would cause inflation which in turn would cause people to cut more trees and plants. Carbon dioxide would soar, and then we all die.

[–] Denjin@lemmings.world 1 points 1 week ago

So, nothing changes, got it.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 week ago

People who were already poor would remain so. Most people who aren’t wealthy can’t afford to own acres of land that doesn’t produce crops. If leaves suddenly became money, that would not change the fundamental needs people have of food and shelter. So you’d have the wealthy with vast swathes of forest that would slowly die as they carted out a lot of compost for use in markets, and people who live in apartments or other rental situations would never see a leaf on the ground again. You might see suburban homeowners get really good about caring for their trees and planting more, so that’s one possible benefit but overall this would be a nightmare.

[–] LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago
[–] iii@mander.xyz 3 points 1 week ago

Cut down all trees, untill only one is left. Build an army that serves to protect that one tree for its owner.

[–] smokebuddy@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The price of rakes and yard vacuums would skyrocket. City parks would be fenced off and guarded by armed militia the way natural diamond deposits are. In cartoons, those giant paper yard waste bags would be the new sack with dollar sign printed on them. Everyone would suddenly hate the Toronto Maple Leafs (oh they already do? never mind that one)

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The price of rakes and yard vacuums would skyrocket.

Good thing I've got a great new source of income!

[–] KammicRelief@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I'd be like "FUCK! I just mulched all mine this weekend!!!"

[–] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Smoking pot would be expensive

[–] Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

I, for one, welcome our new squirrel overlords.

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

More climate change. How much? Yes.

[–] moseschrute@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

We would suddenly have very well maintained yards. At least as far as leaves go