The Land Ethic is Simple and Functional

I am in support of the Land Ethic because it is more functional than the current ethic of land-as-commodity. In conjunction with Collicatt's comparision of the "land ethic" to the Copernican astrological model, there is the aspect of simplicity. Much like the competition between the Polemic, and the Copernican astrological models, both land ethics work on similar problems. Unlike the ethic of land as a resource which proscribes piece-meal conservation to bandage each individual­ economic bruise, the “Land Ethic” proposes a general outlook that will guide individuals to better manage their use of the land (Leopold 164). The added simplicity is a boon to the general confusion and ignorance present today as to what exactly one should do to the abstract “environment”.

While the Land Ethic surely does not appeal to the individual who exploits the land and in effect, the community, it does to the community of people itself, as well as the biotic community. I think that if people were to understand the consequences of the individual’s actions on their community, and on the land itself, they would adopt the land ethic, rather than follow a system that does not limit such damaging exploitation (Leopold 166).The biggest hurdle is the idea of humanity as a resident of nature rather than the owner, but I agree with Leopold that the evidence directs humanity as subordinate to nature rather than above it. I think eventually, human beings will find themselves more comfortable in a subordinated role to the biological community after experiencing the effects of altering the environment. The question whether the education itself will allow the necessary self-reflection.

The simplicity and functionality of the Land Ethic will be beneficial in its attempt to usurp the current ethic of land-as-commodity.