Part 1: A Summary of the Land Ethic

Part 1: A Summary of the Land Ethic For the purpose of this paper, I have been asked to read and summarize The Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold. In the paragraphs that follow, I will attempt to briefly summarize a few of Leopold s main points and in general, express two of the key concepts that I learned from this article. The topic of a land ethic is a very complex issue and Leopold presents his readers with explanations of the community concept as well as economic value in an effort to define and clarify his conservation policies. For Leopold, there is much that can be improved in terms of the Homo sapiens relationship with the land. While this may not be easily summarized in the context of the limited space allotted, here are my thoughts. Leopold begins his essay with the story of Odysseus, who upon returning home from the Trojan wars, hangs his misbehaving slave girls. Very matter a fact, with no concern for right or wrong, only that they were property to be disposed of. This is, as Leopold sees it, how we treat the world around us. For most, the land is a possession to be discarded or dealt with freely and as we see fit. Leopold feels there are ethical limits to this, An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action (The Land Ethic, pg 202). He suggests that although no particular ethic has been written into law as of yet, this concept of establishing an ethical set of guidelines between man and the land is an ecological necessity (TLE, pg 203). Leopold points out that we continue to consider land and all that occupy it as property to be consumed or conquered. At this point, Leopold offers a new philosophy in which to consider our relationship to the land known as the community concept. The thought is that we are individuals who are members of a community of interdependent parts (TLE, pg 203). This idea expands the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals or collectively: the land. (TLE, pg. 204) For a land ethic to exist there needs to be a change in thought, from that of considering land as property to thinking of it as an integral part of our overall community and that we are citizens of that community. If I understand Leopold, to this point, he is not saying that we should stop managing or using the resources, but that all living things have the right to continued existence and at least in some spots their continued existence in a natural state. (TLE, pg.204) We need to eat, have shelter and in general live life, but not with a total disregard for the land. It is important to note here that Leopold believes ownership of conservation policies must be championed by private land owners rather than governmental agencies. In most cases, big government will merely choke the process rather than effectively manage the resources. Another of the key concepts that is discussed in Leopold s essay, is the fact that most, if not all things are considered in terms of the economic value that is attached to it. The land relation is still strictly economic. (TLE, pg. 203) This is what feeds the fallacy that economics

determine all land-use. (TLE, pg. 225) In our world today, Leopold argues that critical land spaces are often overlooked in terms of conservation merely because they do not appear to have value in terms of our economic growth and development. From the standpoint of assigning a value to this type of land, the economist in the room has difficulty relating value to streams, birds and butterflies. I can recall one real world example where this concept was put to use. In Southern California, beneath the flight path of the Los Angeles International Airport, there currently exists a butterfly preserve. This land was considered worthless to developers given its proximity to the airport flight path but has assumed a value when it comes to conservation. The preserve was established to protect the native blue butterfly habitat. It could have become just another dumping ground in LA but instead, the public saw a value in preserving a native species. It is impossible for there to be a land ethic without a love and respect for the land much as one would love their own family members. This, I think, is how Leopold would have us treat the land, as our family, our mother or even our equal, to treat the land with the same love and respect that we would want to be treated with. As he says, It is inconceivable to me that an ethical relationship to the land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for the land (TLE, pg. 223) He also speaks of this ethic as evolutionary and hopes that perhaps one day we as a society will evolve to this level of love and understanding. By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and implements. (TLE, pg. 226) With evolutionary time, we might reach this place in Leopold s dreams. It seems almost like an impossible dream that people of the world would ever think in these terms. Even he says, [It] would appear hopeless but for the minority which is in obvious revolt (TLE, pg. 224). With well planned initiatives like the previously mentioned butterfly preserve, there is hope that we can move forward with successful evolution of our land ethic.

Part 2: Response to Questions Fred Holupka 1. How would I characterize my conservation policy? Not really sure that I had one up till now. Though I ve always done my best to tread lightly and leave only foot prints and take only pictures, I doubt that I have ever considered, until this moment, where my food comes from or the impact that my lead based fishing lures have on the lakes and streams that I fish. 2. To implement Leopold s land ethic of community might require, in my opinion, a complete restructure of all that we do and how we think. Our society today is so completely driven by profits, that to bring economic importance to something as small and unassuming as wildflowers and songbirds is nearly impossible. That is of course if those birds and flowers find themselves living on land considered worthless. So if this change is possible, small steps will be needed. I might begin by setting aside those lands that might be considered worthless giving the public an opportunity to see the benefits of this conservation and thereby creating economic value in the small things like songbirds and wildflowers. 3. Our Land relation today hasn t changed much and if it has, it has become more lopsided since Leopold writings of the 1940 s. In fact, with our increased population, our land relation has no doubt become more economically driven. As desirable land has become scarcer and therefore more valuable, its use has been redefined. This includes land that was once fertile farm land or open prairie that has been built on with no apparent concern for wild life or watershed. Even now as I look out my window of my home that was built on once productive fruit orchards, I can see off in the distance, homes that creep further and further up the hill as if to imply that the forces of water and gravity have no effect or importance and that we can do as we will. 4. What would Leopold s ethic mean in my life? Being as his ethic is so different from the way we as a society think, I believe it would require a total restructuring of all we know. From the concept of green front yard of my home and the pesticides and fertilizers used to make it green to the fossil fuel burning vehicle that bring the gardeners who cut the grass and send those cuttings to a landfill. As a society, we live so far out of balance with the land ethic that I am not sure that we could ever truly achieve that balance. 5. I do agree with the statement that a thing is right when it tends to preserve [and] is wrong otherwise. However, I m not sure that Leopold was suggesting that this idea would supersede all other concerns. Each member of the community is vitally important to the community and therefore cannot be disregarded within the function of that community. If our

needs are not met and we suffer a degraded existence, doesn t the whole biotic community suffer with us? We are members of that community and have a role in it. We must eat, find shelter and provide for all of the other basic needs in life which is no different than that of any other consumer in the community. This statement brings with it an enormous responsibility for we must do this with in the realms and limitations of the community, something that up till now has been either overlooked or forgotten. 6. I think that I am like most other people in that I first notice the beauty and then wish to defend and protect, it is this beauty that draws my attention. Undoubtedly, like most people, I still place the economic value to things and that is why the beauty of something comes into play first. Only after having experiencing the desert on an early morning in the spring, do you get to know its softer side, thereby seeing it as something more than sand, cacti and unbearable heat? Armed with this new knowledge, gives me the economic value the desert needs, for me to make it something worth protecting. 7. To be wholly honest, my land ethic, if in fact I have one, is undoubtedly somewhere in the middle of self-interest and a true interest in non-human elements. Being a consumer, I tend to think of things as what I need to have in my life to be happy and comfortable. Typically, I think of all things natural in terms of my involvement with them i.e.: skiing, hiking, fishing etc. I guess I am still caught up in the economic value of things.

Part 3: A Critique of the Land Ethic Fred Holupka After reading Leopold s the Land Ethic, I must admit that his ideas sound almost unattainable. When you consider the fact that his essay was published in the 1940 s, I doubt that the world we live in is in any better of a state. With limited exception, things seem to have gotten worse for I have difficulty believing that he ever considered global warming. It was very interesting reading and I particularly enjoyed his analysis of the affect human interaction has had on the topography of this planet which includes the results of plow, cow, fire and ax (TLE, pg. 205). For better or for worse, these practices have had different affects and outcomes in various regions throughout the world. In fact, when he talks about Kentucky and its blue grass, I always thought that was just how it was - not the end result of human interaction. The question was asked if this reading changed my opinion(s). I ve always had the opinion that there is much that could be done to restore this planet, our home, to a healthier state of being. My role in this restoration has always felt so insignificant that it seemed pointless. Now, having read Leopold s essay, I doubt that he would agree with me. In reflection, perhaps my opinion has swayed a bit. Leopold made some thought provoking arguments that tempt me to reconsider my position on my own insignificance as it relates to conservation practices. It is clearly obvious that he has spent a great deal of time formulating his conclusions. His ideas are equally simple and bold, revolutionary and reasonable. I think that in some cases his ideas, perhaps only in theory, have been applied such as in some forest management policies. Obviously, there is a great deal of room for improvement in our current world conservation practices. From a US perspective, I would recommend that we as a society take a hard look at Leopold s theories and abandon our false reliance on governmental management of conservation. Private funds and social ownership may well be part of the answer to the next generation s successful conservation plan.