Leopold’s Views

Ethics can be understood as that which sustains cooperation for a mutual continued existence. Leopold presents two sides of the same ethical ‘coin’: “an ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence” (§ 2) as well as “philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct” (§ 2). These definitions present Leopold’s understanding of ethics as a system by members permit and ban certain actions that conflict with a mutual continued existence. Much how murder is prohibited in a society to allow its members to continue their life in comfort, ethics sets these boundaries and provides ‘ought to’ and ‘ought not’ modes of action that assist in sustaining a fulfilling existence for all.

Complex ethics arise as its domain extends to include more members in a cooperative continued existence. “The first ethics dealt with the relation between individuals…later accretions dealt with the relation between the individual and society” (§ 2). By this, Leopold states that ethics between the first two humans who decided to cooperate may have been simple (you and me versus the world, and a simple handshake). As human groups began to turn to massive cities and wield resources and power unimaginable to the first humans, complex law codes, courts, who is owed what, and why this person must pay more taxes than another (if at all) display ethic’s rising complexity as its domain grew from human to human, to human to society.

The next step in the extension of ethics is to include the individual in relation to the whole environment. A “land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include…the land” (§ 3) and members of the ecosystem it contributes to. These ecosystems too work to ensure a continued existence and share a collective instinct to move to this goal: plants are typically consumed first which provide the energy for the various chains of energy that course (not exclusively) through bugs, prey, and predators, who then decompose back into the soil (§ 6). This reveals ecosystems to be a complex entity with countless moving parts, members, and factors that include both biotic and abiotic members (sun, soil) that contribute to a cooperative continued existence.

As of now, the relation of the individual to the environment is that of economic benefit and not a cooperation. Leopold provides an example of this in the eroded topsoil of Wisconsin in the 1930s where farmers were urged to use pro-environmental practices which were quickly abandoned after the bare minimum was done, for a minimum length of time, an shaped around the best short term economic yield the farmer could reach (§ 5). As well in the drawing of the threatened songbird as economic issue of insect populations rising dramatically, when in fact the songbird was just adored (§ 5). These examples illustrate the fact that human’s value (some) members of the environment as means to their economic ends. This flies in the face of the land ethic Leopold advocates which would value members of the environment in the same manner a human is: with the right to continue in their own existence.

Humans and Nature Living in Harmony

A land ethic bestows benefits like those praised in a human to human, and human to society relation. Much how two can make a hunt easier or a society provides specialized services thus access to a higher quality of life, including the environment (and all its abiotic and biotic parts) in our ethics presents benefits that our current relation to  the environment does not allow. Cleaner air, lands protected from soil erosion, and sustenance can be taken in a sustainable manner without the industrial slaughter of farm animals, hunting for sport, or stripping a forest of trees and farmland of nutrients in a sudden harmful manner. Our anxieties of global warming and the deaths of many species would be quelled with a respect for nature in itself, and in return for a sustainable lifestyle (at the cost of a few readily available luxuries) humans would not have to worry about one day losing the cushy way of life most of modern humanity enjoys. This does not prohibit meats or agriculture altogether, for example, but only means to alter the scale and process to continue human existence in tandem with maintaining a stability our fellow citizens of the environment are also entitled to for their own sake.

Critique

While Leopold’s argument for a land ethic are compelling, how exactly a practical plan of bringing it to reality seems incredibly overlooked. Is it possible to convince a public to adopt a land ethic despite the threat of long-term extinction? Humanity has a reputation of waiting till the last quarter before fixing its problems (political disputes, war, updating laws) and I am sad to say that the environment may only be considered when, for example, farming begins to dry up or cattle and game begin to disappear. Our nations are fed by massive scale food and fuel projects that require years of commitment to reverse, and I fear the average joe will overlook this issue until it knocks at the door unless a more practical angle is explored, and even then, do we still have the time to save a planet in the symbiotic manner Leopold advocates? We have been polluting for centuries and it seems now a sudden cessation of our mechanisms is required to bring the end of the environmental crisis, but is this enough to convince humanity?

A proper land ethic requires international cooperation. Humanity cannot even do this for each other, so convincing the population would seem to follow an international agreement potentially ages away. Think of oceans, the atmosphere, and animals which migrate through international borders. The environmental crisis is an international crisis that is being bogged down by intranational politics relative to every nation in the world, all at different stages in their belief of a land ethic (if any).

Despite these issues in executing Leopold’s land ethics, this should not undercut the importance of a respect for the earth that houses us all. It has been a long time since humanity has been all at the mercy of nature like in the ancient past, but we must remember that our absence does not absolve us of our citizenship to nature, and this should inspire a care for the environment for itself that still has us messily entwined in its circuit of living things.

Source:

Aldo Leopold. The Land Ethic. A County Almanac (1948) http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf