Table of Contents
Introduction: The Search for a Single Word
The search for another word for justice is an ancient and persistent human endeavor.
It reflects a desire to grasp, in a single term, a concept that is at once foundational to civil society and maddeningly elusive.
Thesauruses offer a litany of candidates: fairness, equity, righteousness, integrity, redress, lawfulness.1
Each word shines a light on a particular facet of the whole.
Fairness may speak to impartiality in judgment 3,
redress to the correction of a specific wrong 1, and
legality to the faithful adherence to an established code.4
Yet, none of these terms can bear the full weight of the concept they seek to define.
They remain partial, capturing a static quality or a singular outcome, but failing to describe the dynamic, relational system that justice truly Is. The very phrase “to do justice to” a subject implies a deep and thorough engagement, an adequate representation that a single noun, by its nature, struggles to provide for the concept of justice itself.6
This linguistic challenge hints at a deeper conceptual problem.
Our search for a simple noun reveals a tendency to think of justice as a product to be dispensed or a state to be achieved, rather than as a living, breathing process.
The most profound philosophical inquiries into justice do not describe a destination, but a journey; they detail the processes of allocation, the methods of repair, and the rules of engagement that constitute a just society.7
This suggests that our vocabulary, focused on discrete objects and qualities, may be ill-suited to capture a phenomenon that is fundamentally about relationships and processes.
If we are to find a more meaningful word for justice, we may need to look beyond our own lexicons and legal codes to other complex adaptive systems that have mastered the art of sustainable, collective existence.
To this end, this report turns to an unexpected domain: the forest floor.
Beneath the quiet solitude of the trees lies a bustling, ancient metropolis, a vast subterranean network of fungal threads known as a mycorrhizal network, or the “wood wide web”.10
This intricate web is a living system of communication, resource distribution, mutual support, and conflict resolution that connects individual plants into a cohesive, resilient community.
It is a biological architecture that has successfully navigated the challenges of scarcity, competition, and collective well-being for hundreds of millions of years.12
By using this vibrant, complex network as an organizing metaphor, we can begin to dissect, analyze, and ultimately redefine our understanding of justice—not as a static ideal, but as a system of vital, life-sustaining connections.
Part I: The Architecture of Fairness – Mapping Human Conceptions of Justice
Before exploring the forest’s living metaphor, it is essential to first map the foundational architecture of human thought on justice.
Philosophers and legal scholars have, over millennia, delineated several distinct, though often overlapping, forms of justice.
These frameworks provide the vocabulary for our inquiry, revealing the core tensions and priorities that have shaped our societies.
Subsection 1.1: The Calculus of Consequence: Retributive Justice
Retributive justice is perhaps the most ancient and intuitive of these forms.
It is a fundamentally retroactive approach, oriented toward the past, that seeks to impose a punishment upon a wrongdoer.8
Its central principle is that of “just deserts”—the idea that people who commit wrongful acts deserve to suffer a penalty proportionate to the harm they have inflicted.8
This model is not primarily concerned with deterrence or rehabilitation; its purpose is to punish someone for their wrongs, period.14
The underlying logic is that the offender has gained an unfair advantage or disrupted a moral balance, and punishment is the mechanism by which this imbalance is set straight.8
The historical roots of this idea run deep.
The famous Code of Hammurabi, from the first king of Babylon, is a landmark example, with its framework of lex talionis, or “an eye for an eye”.15
This approach, which prescribed harsh physical punishments like mutilation, stood in contrast to earlier Mesopotamian codes like that of Ur-Nammu, which often favored fines.15
A similar emphasis on harsh, state-controlled punishment can be seen in the Legalist philosophy adopted by China’s Qin dynasty, which viewed humans as inherently violent and in need of strict control.15
This ancient impulse found sophisticated philosophical defense in the work of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
For Kant, retributive justice was not a matter of social utility or revenge, but of profound moral respect.
He argued that to punish a rational being in proportion to their crime is to honor their capacity for free choice.
His theory of lex talionis held that the only truly just punishment was one that inflicted a harm similar to the crime—famously arguing that death is the only equivalent punishment for murder.15
To do otherwise, in his view, would be to treat the offender as a mere means to an end (such as deterring others) rather than as an end in themselves.
Despite its powerful hold on the human imagination and its central role in most modern criminal justice systems, the retributive model is fraught with limitations.
A primary criticism is that it conceives of crime as an offense against an abstract entity—the state—while often marginalizing the concrete needs of the victim.8
The process of fining or imprisoning an offender does little to heal the victim’s wounds or repair the specific harm done.
Furthermore, the line between retribution and simple revenge is perilously thin, and an emphasis on punishment can easily devolve into a cycle of vengeance that fails to address the root causes of crime.8
Finally, its effectiveness as a tool for social good is highly questionable.
High rates of re-offending among former prisoners suggest that punishment, in and of itself, is a poor method for preventing future wrongdoing.9
It may achieve a form of accountability, but accountability is often only the first, and most basic, step toward a more complete vision of justice.13
Subsection 1.2: The Logic of Allocation: Distributive Justice
If retributive justice looks backward to punish a past wrong, distributive justice looks forward to arrange a future good.
Also known as economic justice, this form is concerned with the fair and equitable allocation of resources, benefits, opportunities, and burdens across all members of a society.7
It addresses one of society’s most fundamental questions: “Who gets what?”.7
The scope of this question is vast, touching not only on income and wealth but also on access to jobs, education, healthcare, political power, and even basic infrastructure.15
The fair allocation of these valued goods is considered crucial to the stability of a society and the well-being of its members.8
The core challenge of distributive justice lies in the fact that while most agree on the principle of fair distribution, there is profound disagreement on the criteria for fairness.
Several competing principles vie for dominance:
- Equity: This principle suggests that one’s rewards should be proportional to one’s contributions. Those who contribute more to society should receive more in return.8
- Equality: This principle posits that everyone should receive the same amount of a given resource, regardless of their status, contribution, or need.8
- Need: This principle argues for a distribution based on necessity. Those who require more to live a decent life should receive more, while those who need less will receive less.8
The most influential modern framework for navigating these principles comes from the American philosopher John Rawls.
In his seminal 1971 book A Theory of Justice, Rawls proposed a powerful thought experiment: the “veil of ignorance”.14
He asks us to imagine that we are designing the basic structure of society from an “original position” where we know nothing about our own future place within it—our race, gender, wealth, talents, or social status.
Rawls argued that from behind this veil of ignorance, any rational, self-interested person would agree to two fundamental principles of “justice as fairness.” First, they would guarantee equal basic liberties for all citizens.
Second, they would arrange social and economic inequalities so that they are both attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, and, most famously, are to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society.
This “difference principle” provides a powerful philosophical argument for creating systems that prioritize the well-being of the most vulnerable.
When such issues of distribution are inadequately addressed, intractable social conflicts are often the result.8
Subsection 1.3: The Path to Wholeness: Restorative & Corrective Justice
A third paradigm, restorative justice, offers a radical departure from the state-centric, punishment-focused model of retribution.
Instead of asking what law was broken, who broke it, and what punishment they deserve, restorative justice asks what harm was done, what needs have arisen, and whose obligation it is to meet those needs.8
It conceives of wrongdoing not primarily as a crime against the state, but as a violation of people and a rupture in interpersonal relationships.8
Consequently, its primary goal is not punishment but repair: healing the victim’s wounds, restoring the offender to a law-abiding life, and mending the harm done to the community’s social fabric.8
This approach is achieved through collaborative processes that seek to involve all stakeholders.
Practices like victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and community healing circles bring together those who have been harmed with those who have caused the harm in a safe and structured setting.9
The focus shifts decisively from what the offender
deserves to what the victim needs to heal and what the community can do to prevent such harm from happening again.8
While the modern articulation of restorative justice emerged in the 1970s, its core tenets have deep roots in many Indigenous justice practices that have long prioritized community harmony and reconciliation over punitive measures.15
Philosophically, it seeks to reaffirm a shared value-consensus in a bilateral process, rather than the unilateral imposition of punishment that characterizes retribution.20
This aligns closely with the broader concept of corrective justice, which focuses on rectifying wrongs and restoring balance, and which has increasingly moved toward restorative rather than purely punitive approaches.17
Subsection 1.4: The Rules of the Game: Procedural Justice
The final cornerstone of the architecture of justice is procedural justice.
This form is not concerned with the outcomes of decisions (who gets what or who gets punished) but with the fairness of the processes used to arrive at those outcomes.7
It is about ensuring “fair treatment” by making and implementing decisions according to rules that are impartial and consistently applied to everyone.8
Key elements of a just procedure include transparency in decision-making, the opportunity for all sides to be heard, and impartiality on the part of the decision-makers.
In a legal context, this is embodied in bedrock principles like the right to a fair trial and the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”.14
The importance of procedural justice cannot be overstated, as the perception of fairness is often as critical as fairness itself.
Studies have shown that people are far more likely to accept an unfavorable outcome—even a distributive injustice—if they believe the process used to reach it was fair and unbiased.14
Conversely, when people perceive that the rules are not being applied equally, the legitimacy of the entire system is threatened.
The widespread protests against racial injustice in 2020, for example, were fueled in large part by a perceived and actual breakdown of procedural justice, where Black people were seen to be treated far more harshly by law enforcement than white people, a failure that amplified outrage over existing distributive and retributive inequities.8
Procedural justice is thus the essential lubricant of the entire system, and its combination with distributive justice forms the basis of the broader concept of social justice, which aims to create a society where both fairness and equality are structurally established.14
A deeper examination of these four forms reveals a fundamental tension within our conceptions of justice, a schism between a backward-looking focus on past transgressions and a forward-looking orientation toward future communal well-being.
Retributive justice is quintessentially past-oriented, seeking to balance a historical moral ledger through punishment.
Its focus is typically on the individual offender and their specific act.
Restorative and distributive justice, in contrast, are fundamentally future-oriented.
Restorative justice looks ahead to how relationships can be mended and future harm prevented, focusing on the web of connections between the victim, offender, and community.
Distributive justice plans for the future stability and flourishing of the entire society by establishing fair systems of allocation.
Procedural justice acts as the crucial mediator between these orientations, dictating how society adjudicates the past through fair trials and how it plans for the future through fair policies.
The perpetual debate over which form of justice is “best” is, therefore, a debate over how a society should balance its obligations to the past with its aspirations for the future, and how it should weigh the rights and responsibilities of the individual against the health and resilience of the community.
Part II: The Wood Wide Web – Justice as a Living System
Having mapped the abstract architecture of human justice, we now turn to the forest floor to see these principles embodied in a living, breathing system.
The Common Mycelial Network (CMN) offers a powerful biological analogue, translating the philosophical concepts of distribution, restoration, and procedure into the tangible, observable processes that sustain an entire ecosystem.
Subsection 2.1: Beneath Our Feet: Unveiling the Mycorrhizal Network
The world beneath a forest is as complex and active as the world above it.
The soil is permeated by a vast, intricate network of fungal filaments called mycelium.
In a process of ancient symbiosis, these fungal threads connect with the root systems of plants and trees, forming what is known as a mycorrhizal network.10
This relationship, which may have facilitated the very movement of plants onto land over 500 million years ago, is based on a fundamental exchange: the fungus, with its unique ability to unlock and transport soil nutrients, provides the tree with vital minerals like phosphorus and nitrogen, as well as water.
In return, the plant gives the fungus a share of the carbon-rich sugars it produces through photosynthesis.10
This network is far more than a simple series of bilateral trades.
The mycelium acts as a biological “information highway,” physically connecting multiple individual plants—often of different species—into a single, integrated community.10
At the center of these networks are often “Mother Trees” or “hub trees.” These are typically the oldest and largest trees in the forest, and as such, they have the most extensive root and fungal connections.10
They act as central nodes, anchoring the community and playing a disproportionately large role in the life of the forest.
This subterranean architecture of connection provides a living model for the systems of justice that human societies strive to build.
Subsection 2.2: The Forest’s Economy: A Model of Distributive Justice in Action
The primary function of the mycorrhizal network is the transfer of resources, making it a stunning natural model of distributive justice.
The flow of nutrients through this “wood wide web” is not random or purely competitive; it is a regulated system that ensures the health and productivity of the entire forest community.21
This distribution often operates along a source-sink gradient, where resources move from areas of abundance (a source) to areas of scarcity (a sink), a process that closely mirrors the distributive principle of allocating resources based on need.12
The role of the Mother Trees provides the clearest analogue.
With their deep roots accessing more reliable sources of water and their large canopies capturing abundant sunlight, these hubs are resource-rich.
Through the network, they channel a portion of their excess carbon, water, and other nutrients to support more vulnerable members of the community.10
This is particularly critical for young saplings growing in the deep shade of the understory.
With limited access to sunlight, these saplings cannot perform adequate photosynthesis to survive on their own.
Their survival depends on the steady flow of nutrients sent to them by the established trees via the mycorrhizal network.10
This is not an act of pure altruism; by ensuring the survival and establishment of the next generation, the hub trees contribute to the long-term health, resilience, and genetic diversity of the forest, which in turn benefits them.
This natural economy prioritizes collective well-being and long-term stability over the short-term hoarding of resources by the powerful, embodying the spirit of a just distributive system.
Subsection 2.3: Tree Talk: A System of Restorative Justice
Beyond the distribution of resources, the network also functions as a sophisticated communication system, providing a compelling model of restorative justice.
When a tree is under attack from insect pests or pathogenic fungi, it doesn’t just suffer in isolation.
It can release chemical distress signals that travel through the mycelial network to its neighbors.11
Receiving this “early warning,” the neighboring trees can mount their own defense responses
before they are attacked, for instance by producing specific enzymes or anti-herbivore compounds that make them less palatable.11
This system of “tree talk” is fundamentally restorative in its orientation.
Its purpose is not to punish the pest but to protect and heal the community.
It is a proactive system of mutual aid that minimizes harm and reinforces the collective resilience of the forest.
Furthermore, the network’s ability to share resources also plays a restorative role.
A tree that has been damaged by wind, lightning, or disease can receive an influx of nutrients from its neighbors to aid in its recovery.22
This process helps to repair the “social fabric” of the forest, preventing a single point of weakness from becoming an entry point for a wider collapse.
This mirrors the core goals of human restorative justice: to heal wounds, address needs, and restore the health of the community so that all its members can thrive.
Subsection 2.4: The Symbiotic Contract: A Natural Form of Procedural Justice
Underpinning both the distributive economy and the restorative communication of the forest is a foundational process that serves as a model of procedural justice.
The very existence of the mycorrhizal network is predicated on a stable, reliable, and mutually beneficial “contract” between the fungi and the trees.10
This symbiotic exchange is the rule of law for this ecosystem.
The fungus consistently provides the tree with access to life-sustaining nutrients and water that would otherwise be unavailable, and in return, the tree reliably provides the fungus with the essential carbon it needs to live and grow.10
This process is the epitome of a fair and transparent procedure.
It is predictable, consistent, and delivers clear benefits to all parties.
This reliable procedure is what allows the system to function with such efficiency and integrity.
It protects valuable resources from being leached away or lost to competing microorganisms in the complex soil environment, ensuring they are delivered directly where they are needed.12
In the same way that fair and transparent procedures in human society build trust in institutions and ensure their legitimate and efficient functioning, this symbiotic contract provides the stable and trustworthy foundation upon which the entire complex life of the forest is built.
The forest model powerfully suggests that the human tendency to silo different forms of justice may be a fundamental error.
In our societies, we often create separate institutions for each function: criminal courts for retribution, legislatures and tax agencies for distribution, and administrative bodies to oversee procedure.13
The forest, however, demonstrates that these are not separate domains but deeply integrated functions of a single, holistic system for maintaining community health.
The very same network that
distributes resources to the needy (distributive justice) is the one that communicates threats and facilitates healing (restorative justice).10
The existence of this entire system is predicated on a stable, reciprocal process of exchange (procedural justice).12
This ecological lesson is profound: a breakdown in distributive fairness, such as widespread poverty, is not a problem separate from criminal justice; it is a direct contributor to the conditions that breed harm.
A failure in restorative practices, such as high recidivism, is not just a failure of the prison system; it is a failure of the entire community’s health.
The forest teaches that these are not four different types of justice, but four inseparable functions of one essential thing: a healthy, connected community.
Part III: Weaving the Networks – Insights from a Tangled World
By weaving together the human architecture of justice with the living systems of the forest, we can derive insights that are both profound and practical.
The forest does not offer a simple utopia to be emulated, but a complex, nuanced model that challenges our assumptions and illuminates the path toward a more resilient and integrated understanding of fairness.
Subsection 3.1: Competition and Conflict: The Forest’s Retributive Analogue
The portrait of the forest as a purely cooperative commonwealth must be complicated.
Alongside the vast network of mutual support, there exists a darker, more competitive dynamic.
Some plants engage in a form of “biochemical warfare” known as allelopathy, releasing chemicals into the soil that inhibit the growth, and sometimes even cause the death, of their competitors.21
This targeted release of harmful substances can be seen as the forest’s analogue to conflict, or even a primitive form of retributive action—one individual acting to harm another for its own gain, to secure resources, and to punish encroachment.
However, the crucial insight lies in the balance between these strategies.
While allelopathic competition exists, it is an exception within an ecosystem that is overwhelmingly defined and sustained by symbiotic cooperation.
The long-term success, resilience, and sheer biomass of the forest depend on the integrity of the cooperative mycorrhizal network, not on the isolated “victories” of individual plants engaged in chemical warfare.21
This ecological reality offers a powerful cautionary tale for human societies.
A society that over-emphasizes retributive justice—focusing on punishment, conflict, and the isolation of offenders—at the expense of the distributive and restorative systems that build community health may win individual battles but ultimately weaken the entire social ecosystem, making it less resilient, less productive, and less healthy for all its members.
Subsection 3.2: Equity, Equality, and the Mother Tree: A Complicated Ideal
A closer look at the forest’s distributive system also reveals a complicating nuance that holds a mirror to our own societies.
The resource sharing facilitated by Mother Trees is not always perfectly impartial.
Research indicates that trees can recognize their own kin and may preferentially send more carbon and other valuable resources to their relatives than to unrelated seedlings.10
This phenomenon of “kin selection” suggests that the network’s distribution is not a perfect embodiment of Rawlsian fairness, but is shaded by a form of biological bias.
This finding is a profound parallel to the persistent challenges of human justice.
It mirrors our own species’ innate tendencies toward nepotism, tribalism, and in-group favoritism.
These biases, which may have evolutionary roots, constantly threaten to undermine our stated commitments to universal principles of fairness and impartiality.
The forest, therefore, does not present us with a perfect, egalitarian utopia that we can simply copy.
Instead, it offers a far more valuable lesson: achieving impartial justice is a difficult and deliberate ethical project.
It requires consciously working against powerful, “natural-seeming” inclinations toward bias.
The philosophical construct of a “veil of ignorance” is not a description of a natural state but a necessary ethical tool, a cognitive discipline we must impose upon ourselves to overcome our inherent partiality and build systems that are truly fair to all.15
Subsection 3.3: The Fragility of the Web: When Justice Fails
The final and most urgent lesson from the forest is about the consequences of systemic failure.
The mycorrhizal network, for all its resilience, is fragile.
Human activities such as clear-cut logging, intensive agriculture, soil degradation, pollution, and human-caused climate change can sever these vital subterranean connections.11
The result is not merely the death of individual trees, but a catastrophic cascade of system failure.
When the network is broken, the forest’s ability to distribute nutrients, share water, and communicate threats is lost.
This leads to reduced biodiversity, the erosion of soil structure, a diminished capacity to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, and ultimately, the collapse of the entire ecosystem.11
This ecological collapse serves as a stark and visceral metaphor for the societal decay that results from systemic injustice.
When citizens lose faith in the fairness of their institutions (a failure of procedural justice), when vast and growing inequality leaves large segments of the population without hope or opportunity (a failure of distributive justice), and when the social fabric is torn by harm that is never mended (a failure of restorative justice), the result is a parallel breakdown.
The invisible connections of social trust, mutual obligation, and shared identity that define a healthy society begin to fray and snap.
Political instability, social fragmentation, and a loss of collective resilience are the inevitable consequences of a broken network of justice.
To crystallize these parallels, the following framework compares the architecture of human justice with its analogue in the mycorrhizal network.
| Concept of Justice | Human Manifestation (as per research) | Mycorrhizal Network Analogue (as per research) |
| Distributive Justice | Social welfare systems, progressive taxation, allocation of public goods based on principles of equity, equality, or need.8 Rawls’s “justice as fairness” aims to benefit the least advantaged.15 | “Mother Trees” transferring carbon, water, and nutrients to shaded saplings and struggling neighbors based on source-sink gradients, a system operating on need.10 |
| Restorative Justice | Victim-offender mediation, community healing circles, and offender reintegration programs focused on repairing harm and relationships rather than punishment.8 | Trees sending chemical distress signals through the network to warn neighbors of pests, prompting a community-wide defense response to maintain collective forest health.11 |
| Procedural Justice | Due process, rule of law, impartial courts, and transparent decision-making that ensure fair treatment and build institutional trust.8 | The stable, symbiotic contract where fungi provide soil nutrients in exchange for carbon from trees—a reliable, predictable, and mutually beneficial process that underpins the ecosystem.10 |
| Retributive Justice / Conflict | Criminal punishment, sanctions, and “just deserts” based on a retroactive “eye for an eye” philosophy.8 | Allelopathic competition, where some plants release chemicals to inhibit the growth of rivals—a form of resource conflict that operates in parallel to the cooperative network.21 |
Conclusion: Another Word for Justice is Connection
This exploration began with a simple query: the search for another word for justice.
Having journeyed through the philosophical architecture of human fairness and the living systems of the forest floor, we can now return to that question with a new perspective.
The inadequacy of simple synonyms like equity or lawfulness is clear.
They are static nouns attempting to describe a dynamic, relational process.
The forest has shown us that justice is not a thing to be possessed but a system to be nurtured.
Therefore, the most meaningful and encompassing “other word for justice” is not a traditional synonym but a conceptual one: Connection.
Justice is the quality, integrity, and resilience of the connections that bind individuals into a community and a society into a coherent whole.
Each form of justice we have examined is, at its core, a way of describing and managing these vital links.
- Distributive justice is the ethics of connection between resources and need, ensuring that the material well-being of the community is woven together.
- Restorative justice is the practice of mending broken connections between people and reaffirming their link to the community after harm has been done.
- Procedural justice is the measure of trust in the connections between citizens and their institutions, ensuring that the pathways of power are fair and transparent.
- Retributive justice, when it stands in isolation, represents a severing of connections—a deliberate cutting-off of an individual from the community as a response to harm, a strategy the forest teaches is fraught with peril for the whole.
To seek justice is to seek stronger, healthier, and more equitable connections.
It is to recognize that, like the trees in a forest, our individual flourishing is inextricably linked to the health of the network to which we all belong.
The final, enduring image is that of the forest itself—a community not of perfect equals, but of profoundly interconnected beings, thriving through a complex, negotiated, and life-sustaining system of exchange.
Justice, in the end, is the name we give to that invisible, vital network that allows a society, like a forest, to not only survive, but to grow, adapt, and flourish for generations to come.
Works cited
- JUSTICE – 68 Synonyms and Antonyms – Cambridge English, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/justice
- JUSTICE Synonyms | Collins English Thesaurus (3), accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/justice/3
- Synonyms of JUSTICE | Collins American English Thesaurus, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english-thesaurus/justice
- 381 Synonyms & Antonyms for JUSTICE | Thesaurus.com, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/justice
- JUSTICE Synonyms: 84 Similar and Opposite Words | Merriam-Webster Thesaurus, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/justice
- 157 Synonyms & Antonyms for DO JUSTICE TO | Thesaurus.com, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/do-justice-to
- www.beyondintractability.org, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/types_of_justice#:~:text=This%20article%20points%20out%20that,All%20four%20of%20these%20are
- Types of Justice | Beyond Intractability, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/types_of_justice
- Theories of Justice: Distributive & Restorative – Business Case Studies, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://businesscasestudies.co.uk/theories-of-justice-distributive-restorative-retributive/
- Underground Networking: The Amazing Connections Beneath Your …, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network
- How Mycelium and Mycorrhizal Networks Benefit the Forest – Better Place Forests, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.betterplaceforests.com/blog/mycelium-and-mycorrhizal-in-the-forest/
- The Common Mycelial Network (CMN) of Forests – College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://clas.ucdenver.edu/ges/common-mycelial-network-cmn-forests
- We Want Justice: Retributive, Distributive, and Restorative Justice – Journal of Lutheran Ethics, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://learn.elca.org/jle/we-want-justice-retributive-distributive-and-restorative-justice/
- 10 Types of Justice (2025) – Helpful Professor, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://helpfulprofessor.com/types-of-justice/
- What Is Justice? | Human Rights Careers, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/what-is-justice/
- Justice | Beyond Intractability, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.beyondintractability.org/bi24/justice
- Four Types of Justice – ChangingMinds.org, accessed on August 11, 2025, http://changingminds.org/explanations/trust/four_justice.htm
- Exploring the 7 Major Kinds of Justice in Philosophy, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://philosophy.institute/social-political/exploring-major-kinds-of-justice-philosophy/
- Components of Justice – Penn State World Campus, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/welcome/crimj465/moral_05.html
- Retributive and restorative justice – PubMed, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17957457/
- Inter-plant communication through mycorrhizal networks mediates …, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4497361/
- 5 Ways Mycorrhizae Influence Forest Productivity – CID Bio-Science, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://cid-inc.com/blog/5-ways-mycorrhizae-influence-forest-productivity/
- Top 10 Benefits Of Using Mycorrhizal Fungi In Urban Forestry – Owen Tree Service, accessed on August 11, 2025, https://www.owentree.com/top-10-benefits-of-using-mycorrhizal-fungi-in-urban-forestry/
