Sy, Florge Paulo February 6, 2018

PHIL526 (Environmental Philosophy)

A Reaction Paper to The Land Ethic1

The Governmental Function in Aldo Leopold’s Land Pyramid

Introduction

This paper observes that Aldo Leopold’s notion of the land or “biotic pyramid”2 implies a
function that is akin to an oligarchic-aristocratic form of government. This is because the
structure of a pyramid implies a series of certain layers in which certain entities belong; hence,
perhaps why Leopold states that “[p]olitics and economics are advanced symbioses.”3 Thus, in
line with Leopold’s understanding of the land as a symbiotic or co-operative community, this
paper finds that the hierarchical structure of the pyramid reveals the very essence of its co-
operation: to rule or to be ruled, or, in the ecological sense, to prey or to be preyed.

The Pyramidal Land

The construction of a pyramid presupposes that its completion begins when its peak at the
top is formed and, then, is continued downward.4 This suggests that the framework of the
pyramid comprise certain layers from the bottom up to the top. Leopold takes this illustration to
symbolize the land5 where, through its symbiotic character, “[e]ach successive layer depends on
those below it for food and often for other services, and each in turn furnishes food and services
to those above.”6 However, if there consists an above-and-below sequence in the land pyramid,
then not only does it contain entities at the bottom, but also at the top; and because the base is the
area that is most extensive, then it is where most of the entities are occupied—entities that are
ruled by the entities that occupy the higher layer. Thus, accordingly, because each successive
layer is tighter than the layer before it, fewer entities occupy them. The question this paper asks
is: What occupies the topmost layer? If the essence of the pyramidal structure of the land is to
rule or to be ruled, then what occupies the topmost layer must be that which rules the whole

1
Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” in A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There (London:
Oxford University Press, 1968), 178-197.
2
Ibid., 187
3
Ibid., 178
4
Dows Dunham, “Building an Egyptian Pyramid,” Archaeology 9, no.3 (Autumn 1956): 161. “Finally, we
had observed in many instances at Giza and elsewhere that it was the practice to lay masonry with its exposed faces
unfinished and to dress the final surface beginning at the top and working down.”
5
Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” 187.

6
Ibid. 187
pyramid. It is not, however, the concern of this paper to determine which entity occupies that
layer, but rather it seeks to determine in what way the occupant of the highest layer functions as
a ruler.

Perhaps what resides at the highest layer of the pyramid is what ecologists call an “apex
predator,” which is an entity that has the most “elevated position on the trophic ladder.”7
However, can an apex predator sustain by itself? Although the apex predator is characterized as
that which cannot be preyed, it is still prone to endangerment and, consequently, extinction. If
that is the case, then which among the entities in the land would take over the apex layer? The
sustainability of an apex predator, therefore, requires fellow apex predators in order to continue
the survival of their kind. Each layer of the pyramid, then, cannot consist only of a single entity,
but must be in numbers; for this is also in light of the symbiotic character of the land that
Leopold holds.

The Government of the Land

Since each layer of the pyramid functions numerically and not individualistically, the
pyramid can, therefore, be characterized as a “hierarchical multi-oligarchic-aristocratic
structure.” Thus, it can be observed that each layer of the pyramid, from top to bottom, is a
government in itself that is ruled by a higher government—and, accordingly, the apex being the
highest government. Following Aristotle’s categorization of the government according to its
number of rulers,8 the pyramid is oligarchic-aristocratic because each layer consists of only a
number of entities; and in light of the dichotomy between the kinds of government, either in its
“true or… perverted form,”9 this paper combines the function of an oligarchy and an aristocracy
because the essence of the land is not always optimistic in the sense of the self-development of
entities. Death and decay remains pessimistically necessary in the land in order for the survival
of other entities; hence, the essence of the land is to rule or to be ruled. Thus, Leopold says that
there is always an “upward flow”10 of energy within the pyramid.

With respect to mentioning the other forms of government, the land pyramid can function
neither as a tyrannical-monarchial structure nor as a democratic-politic one. On one hand,
although the tyrant or the monarch would seem to be the ideal character of an apex predator, the
fact that entities cannot possess self-sustainability rules this form out. Furthermore, because the
land and the entities that occupy it are concrete and material and, the idea of a single ruler in a

7
Arian D. Wallach et al., “What is an Apex Predator?,” Oikos 124, no.11 (November 2015): 1453.
8
Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 2008), 87. “Aristotle was willing to recognize that, under appropriate circumstances, a
community can organize itself into at least three different kinds of government. The basic difference among them is
primary the number of rulers each has.”

9
Ibid. 87

10
Leopold, “The Land Ethic,” 189.
layer defeats the symbiotic framework of the land. On the other hand, the pyramid cannot also be
characterized as a democracy or a polity because, although it shows a strong sense of
interrelatedness, it contains a crucial aspect that is not found within the land pyramid; this aspect
found in democracy or polity is equality. The land pyramid, because it contains multiple layers,
entails hierarchy. Hierarchy is essential in nature because it is necessary for inequality to exist
among entities; hence, it is only natural for some entities to be stronger or weaker than others.
Thus, the essence of the land, which is to rule or to be ruled, remains intact.

Conclusion

Despite the preliminary structure of Leopold’s land pyramid, however, it still remains
questionable whether or not this structure is enough to show the importance of nature or of the
environment as regards to its value. Does the pyramid show that, through its symbiotic character,
it should not be tampered with merely for an economic use; or does it show otherwise? Thus,
Leopold says that there is still a cleavage between those who believe that the land functions
merely for “commodity-production,”11 and those who believe that the land “function[s] as
something broader.”12 The burden of proof seems lie on the latter. If necessary inequality is
present by nature, then, perhaps, it is unavoidable at times that the land is used for commodity-
production. Nevertheless, having this preliminary conception of a land pyramid, it gives a
supposition that, through its governmental function as a “hierarchical multi-oligarchic-
aristocratic” structure, there is an interrelationship between entities—man and animal that
depend on one another for survival; and it is this interrelationship that leads to the question of
how man should regard the land itself. The said essence of the land, which is to rule or to be
ruled, however, provides a hint on how entities are to exist.

11
Ibid., 192

12
Ibid. 192
References
Leopold, Aldo. “The Land Ethic.” In A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There,
178-197. London: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Dunham, Dows. “Building an Egyptian Pyramid.” Archaeology 9, no.3 (Autumn 1956): 159-
165.
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch and Fieser James. Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of
Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
Wallach, Arian D. et al. “What is an Apex Predator?” Oikos 124, no.11 (November 2015): 1453-
1461.