It isn’t as if regenerative agriculture is not putting nutrients back in the soil either. They are, usually in the form of compost or animal manure.
However, soil fertility is not just about the chemical makeup of the soil. There are soil bacteria and mycellium that symbiotically live at the roots to help plants make use of those nutrients. Root systems of plants grow together, and plants biochemically communicate with each other. Roots also need oxygen, so aerated soil matters. Plants that die back in the soil leave their roots in place, slowly decomposing and releasing other nutrients for use of other plants, and other organisms such as earthworms. Those same roots — both larger tap roots, and fine branches of the root system, changes the absorptive qualities of the soil so that it can hold water and release them.
In other words, healthy, fertile soil is very much alive, and helps store and regulate water and nutrients for the plants that live and die on the soil.
Healthy, fertile soil can support life directly in a way in a much tighter feedback loop. Using amendments requires more intervening steps. If the top soil gets eroded away, that top soil has to get imported, creating a longer supply chain. The longer the supply chain, the more fragile it becomes. It becomes less adaptive, more sensitive to volatility.
Another is that the optimization toward short term yield is often at the cost of long-term fertility. We build these fragile systems that are optimized for scale and yield as if that fertility will not run out. If the soil is depleted somewhere, importing soil amendments, or even top soil, has to come from somewhere. Even if the supply chain is not cut, at some point, the resources to maintain that longer supply chain will run out.
This setup also conditions people into a situation where they now have to rely on currency to supply basic needs. That, in and of itself, drives the growing wealth inequality of today.
To address that wealth inequality, we are now seriously considering universal basic income. But if you looked at universal basic income as just one type of energy and nutrient flow, it is ridiculous that an easier method for obtaining those basic needs can be had by allowing each household, or neighborhood to supply some of those needs locally.
There is a small town in Canada where the community got together to convert one of their public spaces into a food forest. Volunteers came in to dig and plant. Local businesses stepped up to provide transportation to bring in the compost, the perennials, shrubs, and trees. The food forest was designed in a way so that the natural rainfalls can sustain the growth. The perennials all create a long-term supply of food. Once the initial capital was invested, there is little ongoing maintenance.
People in the community can then go into food forest and get free food. There are probably some education on identifying what is edible (and there are plenty of it). Food grows on trees and on the land. A food forest doesn’t require currency to feed people, and as such, is resilient to a deflationary contraction of the economy.
And that is just one regenerative system. Individuals who have access to multiple, local, regenerative food systems have a greater food security than those that do not.
And that is just food, one out of a handful of the foundational survival needs. There is also shelter, warmth, clothing, water.
Permaculture design looks at the whole system, such that all of the basic needs can be partially, if not wholly, met with regenerative systems. A individual within a community that has access to multiple regenerative processes that can meet all of the basic needs do not require universal basic income. When something like the pandemic happens, they are in a far better place than individuals who do not have access to any regenerative processes.
Such an individual can build the higher needs (I am referring to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs) on a foundation of resilient and regenerative processes. With such a solid foundation of abundance, there is less reason to hold others in contempt. Or to cast out and alienate another group out of fear and anxiety over survival needs.
That fertility of the land extends into creativity of the people. The permaculturists I encounter tend to generate many new ideas. There is a liveliness and exuberance that is a contrast to the general malaise and loneliness of many urban and rural residents.
It isn’t as if building this is not for free either. This does require a significant shift in the mindset, in how one views and experiences the world. There is hard work required. Your hands get dirty. But I would say, it is also more fulfilling — not just nourishing the body, but also more intangible needs for people to have meaningful and purposeful lives.