Cade Tyrell

BIOL1120 - Valdez
24 November 2019
The Land Ethic ​Reflection

Aldo Leopold, founder of the modern ecology movement, was one of the first
philosophers to believe that ecosystems, along with humans, deserve moral consideration and
value. Leopold worked in concert with his surroundings, dedicating his life to forestry, science,
ecology, and conservation. He lived from 1887-1948, teaching at Wisconsin-Madison University
from 1933-1948 and most well known for his book ​A Sand County Almanac​. ​The Land Ethic
was published in 1949 as the ‘finale’ of this book. Leopold’s “Land Ethic” essay is a call for
moral responsibility to the natural world. To put it simply, the Land Ethic enlarges the
boundaries of the biotic community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively:
the land (Leopold p 204).
The Ecological Conscience section of the Land Ethic is important because it details the
simplicity of conservation and difficulty of engaging individuals to make decisions that benefit
the community. He states, “When one asks why no rules have been written, one is told that the
community is not yet ready to support them; education must precede rules. But the education
actually in progress makes no mention of obligations to land over and above those dictated by
self-interest. The net result is that we have more education but less soil, fewer healthy woods,
and as many floods as in 1937” (Leopold p 208-209). I think this quote shows how well the
essay has aged over the years because we are still facing these issues today. Too often are
policies regarding the environment and land use governed by economic self-interest. I agree
with Aldo, this problem stems from a lack of proper education on obligations to the land over
self-interest.
I feel that the land-relation is still dominated by, but no longer strictly economic. It
requires at least some obligation to naturally improving/restoring/caring for the land in order to
be a decent, respected member of society. This comes with the level of widespread awareness
of these issues. Governments today struggle with the issue of evaluating the significance of a
natural area based on the highest price a developer would pay, instead of the immense value
provided by and for the entire ecological community.
Whether on purpose or not, the power seeking, unwise egocentric viewpoint is subtly
taught and promotes conquering the world as if humans are #1 and self-interest is the priority
(anthropocentrism). It was not until the last year of high school and first year of college when I
was introduced to the holistic, sustainable, and balanced eco-centric view at school. I think that
there should be mandatory courses in conservation biology, consumer/advertising culture,
climate change, and environmental stewardship. For example, biology is a required class for
high school students, but conservation aspects such as those discussed in this course are
completely glossed over or left out. To close this section, Leopold said, “No important change in
ethics was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties,
affections, and convictions”(p209-210). He is right: the community will be ready to support these
important ideas when they begin to understand their relation to land and to the animals and
plants which grow upon it. Equally important is humans reconnecting with nature. We will have
the necessary resources and interest to solve these complexities with a renewed sense of
connection to the ecosystems we’re immersed in everyday!
The Land Pyramid section is very profound. It describes the energy flow from the sun
throughout the planet and how humans engage, adapt, and interact with land as an energy
circuit. In The Land Ethic, Leopold states, "The process of altering the pyramid for human
occupation releases stored energy, and this often gives rise, during the pioneering period, to a
deceptive exuberance of plant and animal life, both wild and tame. These releases of biotic
capital tend to becloud or postpone the penalties of violence" (218). At the time of writing, it's not
likely that the far-reaching impact of fragmenting habitat, water capture and movement,
changing farming methods, and other changes in the land surface was realized, though Leopold
warns about these. For example, changes in bee behavior was likely overshadowed and
minimized by the success of monocultures.
Even in 1949, at the end of this section Leopold warns of the ramifications of using
imported fertility to bolster poundage from depleted soil, stating that it does not bolster
food-value (222). The ever increasing use of fertilizers and advanced pesticides today (such as
glyphosate and neonicotinoids) is very alarming. They may increase yield, but bring about a
host of other issues like insect colony collapse and health issues. Pesticides designed to kill
insects when they take a bite but considered ‘safe for humans’ has me skeptical about their
potential side effects. Unfortunately, in the economic self interest of a large corporate farm,
increasing yield (while abruptly altering the ecosystem) takes preference over a holistic farming
approach such as Joel Salatin’s Polyface farm. Just because we can artificially alter the soil to
be fertile does not mean it is beneficial to all aspects of the biotic system and the end product.
Leopold goes on to say, "The land recovers, but at some reduced level of complexity,
and with a reduced carrying capacity for people, plants, and animals" (219). This is essentially
what we’ve been discussing - changes in population sizes and a loss of biodiversity when the
land is altered for human purposes. We have tailored the land to our immediate need, which
may seem beneficial initially, but in the long run it’s often destructive and can hurt and change
every aspect of the ecosystem to become less biodiverse. His concept of land as an energy
circuit is one of the most important aspects of this essay. These three basic ideas are still
relevant and can be applied to decisions made about land-use and environmental policy today:
Land is not merely soil, Native plants and animals keep the energy circuit open; others may or
may not, and Man-made changes are of a different order than evolutionary changes, and have
effects more comprehensive than is intended or foreseen (218).
From my understanding, it seems there are many cases where we've treated land
merely as soil to be manipulated for the success of infrastructure or one specific food crop. By
removing cover crops, landscapes with native flowers blooming all season, fragmenting the
landscape, and planting non-native species, it seems like we are shorting out the energy circuit
and obstructing energy flows. Marine species, pollinators, trees and birds are seeing some of
the greatest negative impacts from human actions. From the moral perspective of Leopold,
pollinators (along with other plants, animals, and land) are intricately connected with each other
in the biotic pyramid, so serving humans is not their only purpose. However, in order for these 3
ideas to be acted upon with appropriate judgement, the distinction between ‘man the conqueror’
versus ‘man the biotic citizen’ must be recognized.
With this wealth of knowledge, where do we go from here? What is the outlook? Aldo
Leopold says our connection with nature is the most serious obstacle impeding the evolution of
a land ethic. "...the fact that our educational and economic system is headed away from, rather
than toward, 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 is
the space between cities on which crops grow. In short, land is something he has 'outgrown'"
(224). I agree with Leopold and believe that helping individuals understand the true value (not
monetary) of the land requires love, respect, and admiration for land.
The Land Ethic was published 70 years ago, yet it carries over to modern attitudes about
land extremely well. Urbanization separates us from having a relationship and companionship
with nature and its elements. Simple things can bring us closer. From planting flowers that
attract bees, taking some time each day to be outside, participating in community events, to
removing invasive and planting native species, providing an opportunity for plant, animal and
insect life to come back (or protecting a habitat from interference) is truly transformational.
 A question I ponder is how much can a biotic community absorb and handle? How do we
balance the intricate dance members of the biotic community engage in? Leopold’s main
objective is, “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.” So far, it’s clear that our actions have not
preserved the integrity or stability of many species, who belong to the biotic community. In his
essay he suggests, “the less violent manmade changes we have, the greater the probability of
successful readjustment in the pyramid” (220). It’s unfortunate, but “violent manmade changes”
will continue to occur no matter what if the population continues growing. How we protect,
preserve, change the ecosystem, invest in green solutions and mitigate unforeseen
consequences is important to consider. Humans are disrupting the pyramid for the development
of human oriented communities, so we have an obligation to preserve the biome instead of
separating the large ecosystem we belong to and are supported by.
One of the most common critiques of ​The Land Ethic​ is the idea that he is suggesting the
integrity of the biotic community supersedes the concerns for its individual members.
Hypothetically, if what matters is the biotic community, whatever is destructive to that community
should be avoided, rejected, or corrected. Thus, our large population threatens the biotic
community so violently it must be controlled or reduced. Leopold’s philosophy may disregard the
needs and suffering of some, which is a valid critique, but I will defend the Land Ethic. We have
obligations to the biotic community, but that does not mean we are no longer members of other
communities.
My defense is aided by the philosophy of J. Baird Callicott, a supporter of the land ethic.
He believes that the Land Ethic is not supposed to replace other ethical obligations - it is an
addition to other ethical obligations. When faced with obligations or conflicting duties that arise
from our memberships of these multiple communities (family, neighborhood, social group, biotic,
etc) how are they ranked? Callicott came up with guidelines called the second order principles
(SOP) to help prioritize our obligations. The first principle states: Any obligations generated by
membership in more intimate communities take precedence over those generated by more
impersonal communities. An example of this is giving preference to family home duties over the
rest of the neighborhood. The second principle states: Stronger interests generate duties that
take precedence over those duties generated by weaker interests. Basically, stronger interest
trumps weaker interest. The second principal can override the first principle.
A good example of these principles in action is in farming methods. The first second
order principle could favor towards self-interest economics of farming and maximizing food
output. With pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides at the biotic communities’ expense
because it’s more personally related - farmers need to maximize crops and profits, humans
need food. But, the second SOP says, “Stronger interests generate duties that take precedence
over those duties generated by weaker interests”. Because SOP2 can override SOP1, our
obligation to preserve the biotic community would be greater than the weaker interest of
continuing to engage in farming practices that harm bees, other insects, soil, and obstruct
energy flows in the ecosystem. I believe that my thinking about the land ethic emanates from a
true interest in non-human elements. Of course, self-interest is included, but in the way self
interest aims to do what is necessary for the biotic community to thrive, not just survive.
Instead of looking at this issue from the perspective of human needs and desires, the
Land Ethic helps give a holistic view of our world, where humans cannot have an ethical relation
to land without “love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value” (223). I
believe there should be a balance of aesthetics and ethics. They’re both necessary to motivate
individuals to have an ethical relationship with the land. The environment is not here for
individual humans to conquer, it’s for all individuals of an ecosystem to be interdependent and
cooperational. For this reason, the communities we inhabit must work together. We're walking a
fine line between stability/safety and irreversible contamination. The further we deviate from
natural methods, the more problems like species decline, biodiversity loss, and habitat collapse
are going to occur. This is serious and we have to make changes now. If we do good things for
the environment, it will provide for us and other species in the community in return. The more
people know how our actions contribute collectively, the more everyone will make changes to
positively support the entire biotic community. We belong to it, it directly affects us, so we have
a duty to protect and preserve it by putting forth good action.