As Leopold wrote this paper in 1948, it is safe to say a great deal has changed since it was written, but a lot has also surprisingly remained unchanged. Leopold’s article on “The Land Ethic” made me ponder what Land Ethics is today and how it contributes to the world’s state. While I agree with most of what he says, I believe some points can be argued.

Growing up in Canada, I feel that a great deal of effort has been placed towards conservation efforts and pollution; however, reading this article makes me question many of the motives surrounding these changes. A lot of what I see relates the same mindset observed by Leopold. Our communities still share many of the same ideological traits that people displayed in the early 1900s regarding selfishness. I agree with many of Leopold’s issues regarding people’s idea of land ethics being heavily based around economics rather than being a member of the land. Many of the changes I witness daily take advantage of “economic importance”, at least at the consumer level from what I can see as an average consumer. A modern day example is the price of plastic bags at a store. To encourage people to use reusable bags instead of the single use plastic bags stores provide, companies have started charging for bags. Although this does cut a small fraction of plastic bag usage, the consumer does not always have an eco-friendly mindset pushing them to remember their bags. More often, it is because they would instead rather save their money. People do not see the value in spending 5 cents on a plastic bag when they can either carry the item or bring their bag. However, my argument is that because this is a money based mindset, does that make it wrong? I agree that from an individuals’ ethical standpoint, one can view it as unethical to the land. However, I think it is essential to look at the big picture. Although that individual cares more about saving money, what matters is that they are still unknowingly doing something better for the land. Is it possible for a person to practice ethics unknowingly? Is a question that comes to mind as I think about this. Using an event that Leopold references; even though the only reason songbirds were put on the agenda was for economic reasons, it is good that people were at least able to recognize the issue at all, even if for selfish reasons. Is making everyone understand correct Land Ethics necessary to get the people to comply and change habits for the good of the land? Thinking from this point of view makes me question further what exactly is land ethics.

Another argument I would like to bring up is Leopold’s view on the education method. He says, “is it certain that only the volume of education needs stepping up? Is something lacking in the content as well?” He addresses this for a short paragraph before moving on to farmers without fully addressing the issue of education.  I believe both the volume and content need to step up significantly. To say that the volume needs to be stepped up is directly related to increased content as well. So yes, there needs to be more education, and of course, it must be quality education. I believe the teaching standards in the 1900s must be much different from now but applying the same ideology anyways; I agree that we need more education on the environment and how we connect to it. I believe education and physically exposing children to the land are critical factors that will help current and future generations develop an attachment to the land. I don’t think Leopold stresses this enough. He quickly moves on to a new topic before thoroughly discussing the importance of education in the first place.  If people were to be taught from an early age about earth’s mechanisms and why we should care about it, we could raise individuals to care about the planet. Education is also vital for older generations that can be delivered through the internet, TV, or books. Hopefully, through education, the concept of land ethics can be cultivated to a point where the community can agree that we should care about an endangered species not for economic value but because of the connection we share as fellow members of the land. This is already beginning to trickle into our society as there is a rising number of people fighting for animal rights or working to restore habitats. There are those that are still driven by economic greed. Yet, if we can manage them through laws and regulations such as carbon tax, putting prices on single use plastics,  regulating hunting and fishing, we can lessen their impact.

It would be challenging to get all of humanity on the same page regarding what should make up Land Ethics as everyone has their own experiences that influence the way they see the world. It would be ideal but challenging.