Taylor Schaefers

Professor Livingston
Signatures on the Land
7 January 2016
Reflection: A Sand County Almanac, Part 3

Leopold wrote in the 1940s, The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing
privileges but not obligations. (The Land Ethic, p. 203) What would you say is
our land-relation today?
o Most peoples land-relation is nonexistent. The hunters land-relation is usually
that of the land providing animals for trophies, sometimes food. The farmers
land-relation is his appreciation for the land giving him the opportunity to grow
food. However, there are always extremes to all of the categories, and we cant
group everyone into factions of their land-relation just because of occupation, but
it must be noted on a personal level.
Do you agree that mans role as conqueror of nature is eventually self-defeating?
(The Land Ethic, p. 204) Why or why not?
o I think this is self-defeating. A man conquerors nature to enjoy its riches and
beauties, only to have those riches and beauties used up, and no longer available.
Therefore, making the man not a conqueror at all.
Leopold says the land ethic is extending a communitys sensibilities to all members
of the community, nonhuman as well as human. What would that mean in your life
or community?
o As we mentioned in recent discussions, this would need to include predators and
species that we may not look upon as essential. Our way of life would need to
change if we had predators like wolves and mountain lions prowling around.
How did our societys disapproval of slavery come about? Is that relevant to our
view of the land?
o After much time, people found out that the factor of skin color is due to the
amount of melanin, even though this is a completely different topic, it can still
relate to the view of land. At the beginning of the time of slaves, people believed
that was exactly how the world was suppose to work, and no one questioned this
at first, it was just the way it was, however, with time passing, and I believe
young people who had new ideas coming into the world changed the race issue
for the better. I believe young people coming in with new ideas is the key to how
others view the land.
Do new discoveries in science contribute to your sense of kinship with fellow
creatures of the earth? (e.g., space pictures of earth, embryonic development,
genetic linkages)
o While many of these discoveries do not directly make my relationship with
animals better, they do so indirectly. Like as the pictures of Earth from space,
These pictures make me realize that I havent seen most of the world and that
even though this world seems large, it can be in one photograph, and that I should

appreciate it more, knowing that the Earth is not the all-powerful planet in the
universe.
In thinking about your land ethic, does it emanate primarily from self-interest, or
from a true interest in non-human elements?
o I believe my land ethic was at first self-interest, but has shifted into a true interest.
With time I have learned that I can benefit from being in the outdoors without
taking more than mental images from it. I used to find things just interesting and it
would not sprout from that, however, now when I find something interesting, I
immediately link it to other parts of nature.
Consider this statement: A land ethic changes the role of humans from conqueror
of the land community to plain members and citizens of it. It implies respect for his
fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such. (The Land Ethic,
p. 204) How would you apply this ethic in practice?
o Instead of thinking of conservation as controlling what the land does, I think we
need to set ourselves in the picture with the land and see how we can interact with
the land, rather than control it.
. . . the trend of evolution is to elaborate and diversify. (The Land Ethic, p. 216)
Does this statement cause you to feel any particular responsibility?
o Yes, I feel that we have taken the power away from nature to elaborate and
diversify, and it is the peoples responsibility to give nature back the ability to do
so.
Do you agree with this passage: A thing is right when it tends to preserve the
integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise. (The Land Ethic, pp. 224-225) Was Leopold suggesting that the
integrity of the biotic community supersedes the concerns for its individual
members? What are the implications of this concept for you?
o I wouldnt necessarily agree this phrase. I believe that Leopold wasnt only
talking about the community as one big thing. Leopold included everything in the
community, and if the concern of an individual can affect the entire community,
then, it might be necessary to put an individual first in order to help the
community.
What is the interplay between the land ethic and human-centered cultural values?
(e.g., human rights vs. population control) Does democracy affect our view of the
earth?
o I believe so, I think that we are trying to control the Earth like we are a
government. Being from a democracy makes me believe that we try to make
decisions for the Earth that the majority of it agrees with.