I'm still checking for the origin of the phrase but here's something from Urban Dictionary:
Self explanitory [sic]. Used as a
response to when something of naught
value has happened
"News reporter: After the assassin
finished off his rampage of brutally
murdering The Jonas Brothers, he
proceeded to then hijack Mel Gibson's
private jet, where they were forced to
crash land in the pacific ocean. And
nothing of value was lost."
and here's an explanation from Yahoo Answers:
I don't know, but there is an episode
of the Critic, in which Jay Sherman
says something similar after watching
a float of a horse's *** on fire roll
into a theatre where the musical Cats
is playing.
Okay, found something more scholarly - in page 120 of David Archard's Philosophy and Pluralism by Lord Bhikhu Parekh we find this:
It actually references Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (1984), X.7! We're a bit closer now and I found this quote from that same reference:
Nichomachean Ethics X.7
There may be something similar in
Metaphysics, but I don't recall that
text as well.
"But we must not follow those who
advise us, being men, to think of
human things, and, being mortal, of
mortal things, but must, so far as we
can, make ourselves immortal, and
strain every nerve to live in
accordance with the best thing in us;
for even if it be small in bulk, much
more does it in power and worth
surpass everything."
Almost but not quite. If you read along though - you'll find the closest phrase to "and nothing of value was lost":
So if among virtuous actions political
and military actions are distinguished
by nobility and greatness, and these
are unleisurely and aim at an end and
are not desirable for their own sake,
but the activity of reason, which is
contemplative, seems both to be
superior in serious worth and to aim
at no end beyond itself, and to have
its pleasure proper to itself (and
this augments the activity), and the
self-sufficiency, leisureliness,
unweariedness (so far as this is
possible for man), and all the other
attributes ascribed to the supremely
happy man are evidently those
connected with this activity, it
follows that this will be the complete
happiness of man, if it be allowed a
complete term of life (for none of the
attributes of happiness is
incomplete).
Here it is in the original Greek:
εἰ δὴ τῶν μὲν κατὰ τὰς ἀρετὰς πράξεων
αἱ πολιτικαὶ καὶ πολεμικαὶ κάλλει καὶ
μεγέθει προέχουσιν, αὗται δ' ἄσχολοι
καὶ τέλους τινὸς ἐφίενται καὶ οὐ δι'
αὑτὰς αἱρεταί εἰσιν, ἡ δὲ τοῦ νοῦ
ἐνέργεια σπουδῇ τε διαφέρειν δοκεῖ
θεωρητικὴ οὖσα, καὶ παρ' αὑτὴν οὐδενὸς
ἐφίεσθαι τέλους, καὶ ἔχειν τὴν ἡδονὴν
οἰκείαν αὕτη δὲ συναύξει τὴν
ἐνέργειαν, καὶ τὸ αὔταρκες δὴ καὶ
σχολαστικὸν καὶ ἄτρυτον ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ,
καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τῷ μακαρίῳ ἀπονέμεται, τὰ
κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἐνέργειαν φαίνεται
ὄντα· ἡ τελεία δὴ εὐδαιμονία αὕτη ἂν
εἴη ἀνθρώπου, λαβοῦσα μῆκος βίου
τέλειον· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀτελές ἐστι τῶν τῆς
εὐδαιμονίας
There's a French translation of this at Hodoi Electronikai:
Si donc, entre les actions qui sont
conformes à la vertu, celles d'un
homme livré aux travaux de
l'administration et de la guerre,
l'emportent par leur éclat et par leur
importance, mais ne laissent aucun
moment de loisir, tendent toujours à
quelque but, et ne sont nullement
préférables par elles-mêmes, tandis
que l'activité de l'esprit, qui semble
être d'une nature plus noble, étant
purement contemplative, n'ayant
d'autre fin qu'elle-même, et portant
avec soi une volupté qui lui est
propre, donne plus d'énergie (a nos
facultés); si la condition de se
suffire à soi-même, un loisir exempt
de toute fatigue corporelle (autant
que le comporte la nature de l'homme),
et tous les autres avantages qui
caractérisent la félicité parfaite,
sont le partage de ce genre d'activité
: il s'ensuit que c'est elle qui est
réellement le bonheur de l'homme,
quand elle a rempli toute la durée de
sa vie; car rien d'imparfait ne peut
être compté parmi les éléments ou
conditions du bonheur.
Google Translate gives this back-translation:
If, therefore, between actions that
are consistent with virtue, that of a
man given to the work of the
administration and the war outweighed
by their brilliance and their
importance, but leave no leisure time,
tend always to some purpose, and are
not preferred by themselves, while the
activity of the mind, which seems to
be of a more noble, as purely
contemplative, with no other end than
Similarly, and bearing with it a
pleasure of its own, gives more energy
(to our schools), if the condition is
sufficient for himself, a hobby free
of physical fatigue (as far as the
nature of the behavior man), and all
other benefits that characterize the
perfect bliss, are sharing this type
of activity: it follows that it is
really the happiness of man, when it
has fulfilled all the period of his
life, for nothing imperfect can be
counted among the elements or
conditions of happiness.
UPDATE: I was able to contact David Archard and I asked him which particular part of X.7 is the statement "and nothing of value was lost" referring to. He said it was used by one of his contributors - Bhikhu Parekh.
It was used by one of the contributors
to a collection I edited – Bhikhu
Parekh
okay, contacting Lord Bhikhu Parekh now ... :)
Etymonline offers no insight. The British National Corpus has three cites from 1989, 1991, and 1992. The Corpus of Historical American English has two cites, from 1981 and 1986. Wiktionary doesn't say anything about etymology, but marks the phrase as UK, Australian, and has a much older cite from Rose Of Spadgers by C. J. Dennis, 1924. The most extensive discussion I have found so far is over at The Phrase Finder:
There have been a few attempts to explain the origin of this odd phrase. [...] The more prosaic suggestion — that it alludes to the practise of throwing stones at crows — is much more likely.
I've found mid-20th century references from England that describe it as an Americanism and American newspaper articles that call it 'an old English phrase'. The dates of those are more or less right but not the locations — the phrase appears to have originated in Australia. Most of the early citations in print come from down under. It has a sort of Australian twang to it and is in common with several other similar phrases, all with the same meaning: starve the bardies [bardies are grubs], stiffen the crows, spare the crow.
Partridge also lists "starve the bardies or lizards or mopokes or wombats", marking them all as Australian expletives, and noting that "Wombats may also be speeded".
Best Answer
Historians compare the rise of gin as England's first drug craze. It was considered a bane on society and started becoming an endemic situation.
In an attempt to control this rising problem, the government attempted to remedy the situation.
The Gin Act of 1736 whereby the government imposed a high licence fee for gin retailers and a 20 shillings retail tax per gallon. These actions were unpopular with the working-classes and resulted in riots in London in 1743. The license fee and tax were lowered significantly within a few years.
The Gin Act of 1751 prohibited gin distillers from selling to unlicensed merchants, restricted retail licenses to substantial property holders, and charged high fees to those merchants eligible for retail licenses. To offer the masses another invigorating (and non-alcoholic) beverage the import of tea was also encouraged.
In the book Gin: The Much Lamented Death of Madam Geneva, by Patrick Dillon, the setting of the age is put into perspective:
And:
And:
There are numerous sources supporting this.
Source: Culture UK
All this evidence supports that the term originated in the UK in the 1700s and not in Canada. Gin was not only the favorite drink of the nation during the Gin Craze, but had become ingrained into the very foundations of society at the time and saw an increase in women consumers which led to its various feminine nicknames.
It wasn't until the Beer Act came along that this changed.
Update
While scouring for more resources, I came across this gem from the The London magazine, or, Gentleman's monthly intelligencer ... 1736. Volume 5:
The usage of 'Mother' has already been established, so the addition of 'ruin' most probably came later on. But the small highlighted portion shows the anger some people felt towards the beverage. The essay that was written expresses a deep irritation towards the government for doing nothing to aid other alcoholic substances that did not get the kind of leniency other beverages do. Since this was released in 1736 and was a culmination of several months worth of work, perhaps this helped garner support for the Gin Act of 1736 that was so unpopular for the miserable masses.
Update 2
Taken from The life of Mother Gin; containing a true and faithful relation of her conduct and politicks, in all the various and important occurrences of state ... of the late Q-n; ... By an impartial hand (1736).
On Page 31 (second image), it states that the "... Ruin of Mother Gin resolved on..."
I dare not make any specific comment, but this is so far the earliest source where Mother and Ruin are this close together dated at 1736.