A need for community ethics to extend to natural environments and organisms

In Leopold’s argument, he believes that we have yet to recognize and acknowledge the land in our community ethics, and I would have to agree. As he mentions, we speak of the “land of the free and the home of the brave” in our national anthem, and yet destroy it and use it for our own selfish benefits. Only when it is directly beneficial (usually economically) for us to conserve the land around us do most people actually make any efforts. Talking about doing something, and then actually putting the work in and doing it are two entirely different things, and I would have to agree that many American’s do not put in the time or effort because they are too consumed in their own lives. If something is not going to directly benefit them, then they are very unlikely to do it. Leopold really rings true when he says “in our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.” Most people do not see the natural world as being valuable in its self, but as merely a means for something else. More often than not we have to make up economic importance in nature in order to place value on it. I have encountered this numerous times with people when I talk about my experiences in Africa. People ask, ‘why should we care about elephants ~ what good are they to us?’ Unable to imagine that they have importance in themselves, people routinely have to create excuses in order to care about them. If people are then unable to find any immediate benefits from the animals or natural environments, then they are just viewed as expendable. In the words of Sarah Palin, “polar bears aren’t endangered, they’re just unlucky.” In order for the natural world to gain its rightful state of importance, we all must first see it as being a part of our community, and something to be valued, protected, and maintained.