This post is in response to Leopolds Article. I like his opening argument stating that land should be given value in a political community. Aristotle, Maimonides, and Locke all said that man is a political animal and they come together to mutually benefit each other and to live well. To incorporate land into that mix as a part of that community would take more than simply stating that we use the land and if we don’t take care of it we will find it to be useless one day. As Leopold mentions, the soil and ecosystems are circles of life. He is further correct in postulating that we are in the embryonic stages of this greater social/ individual awareness. I mean I could have explained the circle of life to you at the age of six after seeing lion king. My mother or father at six could barely tell you where a lion would live. He makes this argument well, but he does not fully explore a reality which would help strengthen his position.
He does agree that economic incentive has historically and currently is causing problems. He does not make give any evidence as to how he would get those who live in the city to become either more aware or even more passionate about the land that their food is grown on. City dwellers will not care more for the environment if the price of their food rises. In fact they will only serve as resistance to a change in environmentally ethical behavior since many people and votes live in cities. I don’t think he gives credence to the power of economic factors. Why can’t economic incentives be used to help move along this evolving ethic? He says government mandates don’t get the environmental return they are intended to, but why can’t such methods like boycott be utilized. If the famers agreed to change an irresponsible practice there in raising costs, they are collectively taking a risk. A farmer could say to hell with all of them I am going back to the old ways. It would take an ethic from the public, but it would not take government to step in. If people were educated enough and it became socially taboo to buy a dissenting farmers product than things might change. It may take more than Paris Hilton and Barak Obama saying not to buy these foods but at least it takes another step towards wider spread education, even if people boycott even without knowing the particulars. If they know an injustice is going on, they may be will to spend that extra fifty cents. Black people walked a whole lot more during the buss boycotts, and that was just one step in a greater achievement in the ethical evolution of race relations. I am not sure how to bring about this step exactly, but I would be interested in Leopolds response to this. I wonder if he would say that it may be to ingenuous to be lasting or effective change.