I really liked Aldo Leopold’s view on what a "land ethic" does. He says it “changes the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the land community to plain member and citizen of it.” I did not, however, think that the point he tried to make about the conqueror role being self defeating, was a good point. He didn’t provide any strong proof or information to support his view, but instead used a short anecdote from the Bible which I didn’t understand or find relevant.
I also disagree with Leopold’s definition of “conservation.” He states that “conservation is a state of harmony between men and land.” I disagree because conservation implies that we [humans] have to make a conscious effort to not destroy, take over, injure, waste etc, which means that we’ve probably already done so. If it was a “state of harmony” it would imply that nature and man are both doing their parts to live congruently. Nature is just living; man is the one who has to make an effort not to be destructive. Later in the reading though, he makes a good point that kind of contradicts his earlier definition of conservation. Later he says “Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity” (this capacity being environmental health, or the potential for land to be able to provide self renewal.)
He is absolutely correct when he wraps up the article with “the evolution of a land ethic is an intellectual as well as emotional process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment