The Land Ethic Aldo Leopold Aldo Leopold (1887-1948) is one of the founders of the American environmental movement. In 1949 ne pub- lished A Sand County Almanac, which put forward the “land ethic"—a philosophy that urges love and rever, cence for nature Feopold argues for ftndamental change in the way ha ‘an beings relate to natuce, We musttop viewing water, Plas, animals, and soils mere resources tobe exploiced He urges that we see them as members of our moral community—the “biotic community’—worthy of to- (ection and respect. “A thing is right when it tends oo reserve the integrity... ofthe biotic community is ‘wrong when iteends otherwise.” Unless we extend mo. ‘ality in dis way we risk dooming our children to live ig an unhealthy unappealing biotic community that will sustain them, ifat all, in a miserable state Leopold points out we ae al quit wilingto recognize obligations to protect community resources such at roads and schools but are far less esponsible when i¢ comes to Protecting ecological systems in which we and all eres. {es live. The environment will not be kepe in good Capp 8 SE Sel Sea ln A kas Hor alt by Ae Logo seoly Brea 4a? 1977 ¥y One ies Pre In Cady pean eat sesity Pres la 865MORALITY AND SOCIAL POLICY repair unless our ethical sensibilities change. “The prob- lem we face is the extension of social conscience from people to land.” ‘The Community Concept All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individ- ual isa member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in the community, but his eth- ics prompt him also to cooperate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for). The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the commu- nity to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively the land. This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obli- gation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but Just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, which ‘we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the ani mals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and ‘most beautiful species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the al- teration, management, and use ofthese “resources,” butit does affirm their right to continued existence, and, at least in spots, their con- tinued existence in 2 natural state In shore, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from con gueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and ako respect for the com- munity as such. In human history, we have learned (I hope) thatthe conqueror role is eventually self-defeating. Why? Because itis implicit in such a role that the conqueror knows, ex cathedra, just what makes the commu- nity clock tick, and just what and who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always tums out that he knows neither, and this is why his conquests eventually defeat themselves In the biotic community, a parallel situation exists. Abraham knew exactly what the land was for: it was to drip milk and honey into Abraham's mouth. Ac the present moment, the assurance with which wwe regard this assumption is inverse to the degree of our education, 866 ‘The Land Eshie she lity ed aus thscenc howe what ade not He knows tha thebioic mechan oad oe das ings may never be fully understood a That man is, in fact, o in fact, only a member ofa biotic team is shown by tory. Many hivorcal evens id lund The chaacteratis of tne s potently a the characters or land determined the lewkqee the men wo ved on Consider, for exam {he yan flowing the Revoltion, tee gregh nese val Ia ReAcontrok the native nda, the French snd ones oe hat Deco terits wonder what would have happened been any overfiow into Ohio, Indic tinental union of new states? Any Civil War? Sti Kentucky was one sentence in native species, ort ay from Europe Contrast the ci thin sour cineca With what nd es us how he where th pioneers were equal Soules tee ly brave, resource and peseering The brought no bluegeas, or ° “P ited to withstand the bumps and buffetings f ha i. This region, when grazed by livestock ru vee of more and more worthlesgrases tee tion of unstable equilibrium. Each recession sion:each increment to erosion bred he, and weeds to a condi of plant types bred ero recession of plants. The 867MORALITY AND SOCIAL POLICY result today is a progressive and mutual deterioration, not only of plants and soils, but ofthe animal community subsisting thereon. The carly settlers did not expect this: on the cignegas of New Mexico some even cut ditches to hasten it. So subtle has been its progress that few residents of the region are aware of it. Ibis quite invisible tothe tourist who finds this wrecked landscape colorful and charming (as indeed it is, but it bears scant resemblance to what it was in 1848). This same landscape was “developed” once before, but with quite different results. The Pueblo Indians settled the Southwest in pre-Columbian times, but they happened stot to be equipped with range livestock. Their civilization expired, but not because their land expired. In India, regions devoid of any sod-forming grass have been setled, apparently without wrecking the land, by the simple expedient of carrying the grass to the cow, rather than vice versa (Was this the re- sult of some deep wisdom, or was it just good luck? I do not know) In short, the plant succession steered the course of history; the pi- oneer simply demonstrated, for good orill, what successions inhered inthe land. Is history taught inthis spirit? It will be, once the concept of land as a community really penetrates our intellectual life The Ecological Conscience Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Despite nearly a century of propaganda, conservation still proceeds at a snail’ pace; progress still consists largely of letterhead picties and conven tion oratory. On the back forty we still slip owo steps backward for cach forward stride The usual answer to this dilemma is "more conservation educa- tion.” No one will debate this, but is it certain that only the volume of education needs stepping up? Is something lacking in the content as well? Ie is dificul to give a fair summary of its content in brief form, but, as Lunderstand it, 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. Is not this formula too easy to accomplish anything worth-while? Ie defines no right oF wrong, assigns signs no obligation, cals for no sacrifice, implies no change in the current philosophy of values. In respect of land-use, it urges only enlightened self-interest. Just how 868 The Land Ethie far will such educatior: tial answer. By 1930 it had become clear to. southwestern Wisconsin’ topsoil {ake us? An example will pehaps yield a par- te firmes in eect Whe pi alone peer ed hep, but after a decade of operation, no county har yet nee on, wer and above selineres i taken for granted nsec od Community entesprises as the betterment. Soa Ray eters he bet of roads, schools, churches, cede riles. But the education 869MORALITY AND SOCIAL POLICY who clears the woods off a 75 per cent slope, turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall, rocks, and soil into the community cteek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected member of society. If he puts lime on his fields and planes his crops on contour, he is still entitled to all the privileges and emoluments of his Soil Conserva- sion District. The District is a beautfil piece of social machinery, but itis coughing along on two cylinders because we have been too timid, and too anxious for quick success, to tll the farmer the true Iagnitude of his obligations. Obligations have no meaning without conscience, and the problem we face is the extension of the social conscience from people to land. No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, afections, and convictions. The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and religion hhave not yet heard of it. In our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it erivil Substitutes for a Land Ethic ‘When the logic of history hungers for bread and we hand out astone. ‘we are at pains to explain how much the stone resembles bread. 1 now describe some of the stones which serve in licu of a land ethic. (One basic weakness in a conservation system based wholly on eco- nomic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value, Wildflowers and songbirds are examples, Of the 22,000 higher plants and animals native to Wisconsin, it is doubtfil whether more than 5 per cent can be sold, fed, eaten, or otherwise ut to economic use. Yet these creatures are members of the biotic ‘community, and if (as I believe) its stability depends on its integrity, they are entitled to continuance. When one of these non-economic categories is threatened, and if wwe happen to love it, we invent subterfuges to give it economic in portance. At the beginning of the century songbirds were supposed to be disappearing. Ornithologists jumped to the rescue with some distinctly shaky evidence to the effect that insects would eat us up if birds failed to control them. The evidence had to be economic in order to be valid, Its painful to read these circumlocutions today. We have no land cethic yet, but we have at least drawn nearer the point of admitting 870 The Land Ethie ‘teatures preserve the health of 9 control rodents forthe farmer, S" species. Here again, the evic Jn order to be valid. Its only in vecont re honest argument that predatom are game by ilingvesng,or are 8 tha they prey only sneen dence had tobe economies yeas that we he the member ofthe commen impending crsure of tie tinker wollen sono rea eh ne pay” by ct nied foese Becaethey prose sean nid dae wale wo py as be rope whi oe les. In Ei Ce a in Europe, where orcas the non-conere wee penne ee thin enon. Moreoversome ke bee) aes oe ngress, the Con Alora and faunas then oe Lack of economic tlie se species 01 groupe, bu of ene bene dunes, and “deseres” n x or paths. The die ea character not only of wla in such eee ---—hrr——CL goverment cannot The net effect is that -xtinction over lange ret large linded, he would be spersed with more valuable able pre aa posi vm orconal sah en in pointMORALITY AND SOCIAL POLICY There isa clear tendency in American conservation to relegate to ‘government all necessary jobs that private landowners fal to perform, Government ownership, operation, subsidy, or regulation is now ‘widely prevalent in forestry, range management, soil and watershed ‘management, park and wilderness conservation, fisheries manage- iment, and migratory bird management, with more to come. Most of this growth in governmental conservation is proper and logical, some of it is inevitable. That I imply no disapproval of itis implicit inthe fact that I have spent most of my life working for it. Neverthe- less the question arises: What is the ultimate magnitude of the en terprise? Will the tax base carry its eventual ramifications? At what point will governmental conservation, like the mastodon, become handicapped by its own dimensions? ‘The answer, if there is any, seems to be in a land ethic, or some other force which assigns more ‘obligation to the private landowner. Industrial landowners and users, especially lumbermen and stock- men, are inclined to wail long and loudly about the extension of government ownership and regulation to land, but (with notable ex- ceptions) they show lite disposition to develop the only visible al- ternative: the voluntary practice of conservation on their own lands. ‘When the private landowner isasked to perform some unprofitable act for the good of the community, he today assents only with out- stretched palm. If the act costs him cash this is fair and proper, but when it costs only forethought, open-mindedness, or time, the issue is at least debatable. The overwhelming growth of land-use subsidies in recent years must be ascribed, in large part, to the government's ‘own agencies for conservation education: the land bureaus, the ag ricultural colleges, and the extension services. As far as can detect, no ethical obligation toward land is taught in these institutions. ‘To sum up: a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore, and thus even tually to eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial value, but that are (as far as we know) essential t0 its healthy functioning. It assumes, falsely, | think, that the economic parts of the biotic clock will function without the uneconomic parts Ie tends to relegate to government many functions eventually too large, too complex, or too widely dispersed to be performed by government. ‘An ethical obligation on the part of the private owner is the only visible remedy for these situations. .. 872 The Land Ethie The Outlook Ic is inconceivable to without love, its va me that an ethical relation to land ean exist Fespect. and admiration for land, and a high regard f and a high regard for alue. By value, | of course mean something far broader than ‘mere economic value; 1 mean valuc in the philosophical sense Pethaps the most serious obstacle impeding the evolution of aland ethic is the fact that our educational and economic system is headed away from, rather thin toward, an intense consciousness of land Your true modern is separated from the land by many middlemen, and by innumerable physical gadgets. He has no vital relation to it to him it isthe space between cities on which crops grow. Turn him loose for a day on the land, and ifthe spot does not happen to be a folflinks ora “scenic” area, he is bored stil IFceops could be raced by hydroponics instead of farming, it would suit him very wel. Syn thetic substitutes for wood, leather, wool, and other natural lind Products suit him beter than the originals. In short, and is some thing he has “outgrown.” : tent somes Almost equally serious as an obstacle to a land ethic i the ati. ofthe farmer for whom the ind ill an adversary, ots rakes that Keeps hin in slavery. Theoretical the mechaniaton uf fine ing ought to cut the farmers chains, but whether it realy do ing ough it whether it really does is One of the requisites for an ecological f ological comprehension of land is an understanding of ecology, and this is by no means co-extensive with “education”; in fact, much higher education seems deliberately to avoid ecological concepts, An understanding of ecology doesnot necessarily originate in courses bearing ecological labels itis quite a Tikely tobe labeled geopraphy, botany, agronomy, histor eres nomics. This is as it should be, but whatever the label, ecological training is scarce The case fora land ethic would appear hopeless but for the mi- nority which isin obvious revolt against these “modern” trends, The “key-log” which must be moved to release the evolutionary broces for an ethic i simply this: quit thinking abou decent land twe a solely an economic problem, Examine each question in terms of whatis ethically and esthetially right, aswell as what is econom, cally expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integ_ Hy, stability and beauty ofthe biotic community leis wrong whe ittends otherwise 873MORALITY AND SOCIAL POLICY lof course goes without saying that economic feasibility limit the tether of what can or cannot be done for land. It always has and it always will. The fallacy the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, isthe belief that economics determines all land-use, This is simply not true. An innumerable host of actions and attitudes, comprising perhaps the bulk ofall land relations, is determined by the land-user’s tastes and predilections, rather than by his purse. The bulk of all land relations hinges on investments of time, forethought, skill, and faith rather than on investments of cash. As a land-user thinketh, s0 is he. T have purposely presented the land ethic as a product of social evolution because nothing so important as an ethic is ever “written.” Only the most superficial student of history supposes that Moses “wrote” the Decalogue; it evolved in the minds ofa thinking com- ‘munity, and Moses wrote a tentative summary of it for a “seminar.” I say tentative because evolution never stops. The evolution of a land ethic isan intellectual as well as emotional process. Conservation is paved with good intentions which prove to be futile, oF even dangerous, because they are devoid of critical un~ derstanding either of the land, or of economic land-use. [think itis a truism that as the ethical frontier advances from the individual to the comunity, is intellectual content increases. ‘The mechanism of operation is the same for any ethics social ap- probation for right actions: social disapproval for wrong actions. By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and imple- ments, We are remodeling the Alhambra with a steam-shovel, and wwe are proud of our yardage. We shall hardly relinquish the shovel, which after all has many good points, but we are in need of gentler and more objective criteria for is successfal use. STUDY QUESTIONS 1. Leopold says, “A system of conservation based solely on eco- nomic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided.” Explain. 2. According to Leopold, the biggest obstacle to the success of the “land ethic” is our educational system and our economy, which hhe says are “headed away from . . . an intense consciousness of land.” He wrote these words more than halfa century ago. Have things changed for the better? Are schools and businesses today more ecologically conscious? 874 's God in Trees? 3 Leopold's land ethic" adopts the principle “A thing i right the biotch to Preserve the integrity stability and beauty of wie biotic community. leis wrong when it tends otherwin = Youree qproblen wih this as a general definition of right and it mote acepeaneg 2 MOU you modify it in ways that make ++ Leopold implies thatthe land ethic is more enlightened th an the Iuco-Christian ethic, Yet, others argue thatthe Jude Che ethic, with its emphasis on advance over ancient syst. spectful of nature, but tolerated non. Who do you think is right? 5. Leopold suggests that an a ristian 1 beings Is God in Trees? OT Dennis Prager Denis Pegs. 1948) hea ‘ymbcted ak show how. He hw wri oa aa ‘onus, abook ft ey (Tankesone ee and mos een Hap ees Dee lowing atl ken om nese Prager distinguishes between Tovers ofthe environment and worshippers of i." " He regards nature worship as a fag" Fram The Peer Pray Dennis Page se by emis of Deni 875