Otto 1

Living with the Land Ernest Otto Conservation Biology 1120-041 28 September 2013

Otto 2 60 years on since the publication of The Land Ethic, and it is more applicable to our society than ever. Aldo Leopold proposed novel ideas about conservation for the time and hoped that people would implement them. In present day, most people understand these concepts but there is still no widespread will to form and follow a land ethic. Leopold begins his argument for the necessity and purpose of a land ethic by describing other social ethics and the conservation movement. Fundamentally an ethic is the guide for social behavior we limit our individual freedoms because of our dependency on society. Leopold argues that this should be extended to plants, animals, and even water and soil. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of these resources, but it does affirm their right to continued existence, and at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state, writes Leopold (204). If we consider the land as part of our community, we must treat it as more than property. After establishing the motivation for a land ethic, Leopold considers the conservation movement, and the government and private individuals roles in it. He claims that the conservation movement is misguided because it encourages individuals to only implement such practices as are profitable to them. Leopold writes, The content is substantially this: obey the law, vote right, join some organizations, and practice what conservation is profitable on your own land; the government will do the rest (207). For example, farmers were given some suggestions on practices to preserve the soil and waterways, but freedom to implement as much or as little as they wanted. They applied methods that

Otto 3 directly improved their profits, but not others that had not clear benefit to them even though they were important to the community as a whole (208). This economic motivation is seen too when people do try to preserve a species or area. To convince others that the species should be saved, it is not enough to argue that the species deserves to exist; the conservationist must show its economic value. Leopold writes, We have no land ethic yet, but we have at least drawn nearer the point of admitting that birds should continue as a matter of biotic right, regardless of the presence or absence of economic advantage to us (211). Views are changing and there is more support for preserving biological elements on their own merits. Finally, Leopold presents what he calls the land pyramid to demonstrate that everything in our world is connected and interdependent. Nature had always been able to adapt to change until man introduced rapid change and disorganization. This disorganization means that the land can support fewer species and lower populations. A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land for selfrenewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity writes Leopold, driving home the importance of creating a land ethic (221). I have never clearly defined my conservation beliefs let alone considered the ethics of conservation. I would define my philosophy as what Leopold hopes for though: that species and the land should be preserved on their own merits, not solely based on economic considerations. I grew up in Manhattan so I had

Otto 4 little interaction with the land in daily life. But we visited relatives in the suburbs a few times a year, and even that sanitized exposure to nature was valuable to me because it seemed so special and precious. As a member of a community rather than conqueror, we need to respect other members of the community. We can show this respect as members of the land community by considering the impact of our actions on others. A simple example is tossing an apple core out your window on the highway; you may think it is harmless and may even nurture the soil, yet it attracts animals to the highway that could be hit by cars. It is more work for you to keep the apple and take it to a trash can, but you are a better citizen of the community if you do that. Our societys relationship with the land is still motivated by self -interest and economics. Companies and individuals in general do not feel obligated to respect the land unless they are enduring significant negative attention for their actions. We are more aware of the issues but the disorganization is still occurring worldwide. To extend our sensibilities to all members of the community including nonhuman ones such as water, companies and individuals should consider the impact on the community instead of just the impact on themselves. This might entail a sacrifice for ourselves (such as slightly lower profits), but fulfills the social contract. Leopold provides some guidance for our obligation to the land and the communitys sensibilities. He writes, Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic

Otto 5 community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise (224-225). This means that we can still consider economic implications, but the integrity of the land must be given at least equal weight. I agree with this passage; it does suggest that the community is more valuable as a whole, but I dont think it means at the expense of the individual. The individuals are still important to diversity, beauty, and stability of the land. Beauty is what motivates me most to implement conservationist practices. Duty is motivating too though, because things that we dont consider beautiful can still be essential. Honeybees are scary to many people yet they are absolutely critical to preserve if we want to also preserve beautiful flowers and nutritious crops. My land ethic emanates primarily from interested in non-human elements. As I mentioned earlier, my limited exposure to nature in childhood made it so much more valuable to me. I do want things such as clean air and fertile soil for selfish reasons too. However my primary land ethic motivation is from genuine interest in plants and animals. The Land Ethic is a fascinating essay. I was prepared to read a dry, old, out of touch essay, but found myself agreeing with nearly every word. As I read it various passages made me think of current conservation issues. For example, Leopold wrote, We can bolster poundage from depleted soils by pouring on imported fertility, but we are not necessarily bolstering food-value (222). This issue is very important to me and even more severe today than it was in Leopolds time. The soil in many farms is now completely devoid of nutrition and

Otto 6 biodiversity. They are monoculture deserts. Some farmers are finally beginning to practice crop rotation, but it might be too little, too late. I would recommend this paper because it forced me to really examine my own beliefs about what I expect from the land, and how I treat it. I believe too many people still put economic interests first. My favorite part of the paper was that which discussed the conservation movements strengths and weaknesses. There only part of the piece I disliked was the introduction; though I later understood and appreciated its purpose and think it is a good analogy, it made me unsure what the paper would be about initially. I found that The Land Ethic articulated my own opinions and beliefs better than I can or ever have. Aldo Leopolds The Land Ethic has increased my awareness of our links with the land and improved my will to treat it as a member of my community.

Reference Leopold, Aldo. The Land Ethic. 1949. PDF file.