• ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    “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

  • LemmyBe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days 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.

  • hope@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    7 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

        • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days 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.

  • dustycups@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    7 days ago

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

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

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

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

      • Bezier@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.

    • Libb@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

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