Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Sept. 29 by Hettinger, Throop, and Nelson.

Aldo Leopold’s Ambiguous Use of “Value”

Aldo Leopold lacks clarity in the expression of his “land ethic”. While he discusses the complexity of man’s symbiotic relationship with the land, our reckless degradation of nature for economic benefit and the necessity of recognizing nature’s value, it is unclear that these issues are necessarily related, and the resulting discussion of value is ambiguous.
Leopold’s writing is successful in articulating the complexity of our relationship with the land. Indeed, it is at such a level of complexity that our actions have a greater impact than we might have formerly realized. And it seems that this discussion is directed towards establishing that nature, in some sense, should be said to be of a high value. While Leopold does not claim that nature has intrinsic value, his discussion of this issue is ambiguous. If it has value, and not only the instrumental value which it has because of the symbiotic relationship in which we are involved with it (including the economic benefits we receive), then in what meaningful sense can nature be said to have value? A clear separation between those who he takes as his opponents (those who “[regard] the land as soil, and its function as commodity-production” (170)) and those who have admiration for the land in the sense required by his land ethic, is lacking. Consider his statement: “It is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation to land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value…I mean value in the philosophical sense” (171).
What does this mean for the issue at hand? It’s hard to say. While Leopold wants us realize the catastrophic impact of our actions, he has not successfully established that we should be concerned because of the effect on nature, as opposed to ourselves. That is to say, while it seems that the basis for the land ethic is mankind’s symbiotic relationship with the land, this seems ultimately reducible to the protection of self interest. Perhaps our confusion is a result of what Callicott calls Leopold’s “extremely condensed prose style” (174), but I am not ready to be this charitable.

Callicott's Strengths and Weaknesses

Callicott’s work provides useful explanations and expansions of Leopold’s land ethic. His argument against Western philosophy’s view that morality stems from rational thought as well as his use of Darwin’s information on the social and community behavior of animals is quite successful in convincing me of their moral value. However, as in other pieces we’re recently read, the scope and implications of the land ethic are fuzzy. He gives us some information but doesn’t clearly address or give adequate explanation for the different statuses of plants, animals, humans, etc. He states that despite the moral equality humans and the biotic community would have under the land ethic, humans remain superior to animals. His basis for this is unclear. It seems he is trying to avoid bringing the capacity for rational thought into the argument. Somehow the fact that we “remain members of the human community” is in itself reason for our moral superiority. There could be evolutionary explanations that underlie this statement, but he does not give them.
Callicott then touches on the issue of animal consumption, and it seems that even he is not sure what the implications of the land ethic in this situation are. It appears that he is against the current system of animal consumption (via his description/praise of American Indians who avoid wastefulness and make use of as much of the animal as they can), but he does not make any explicit statements. The land ethic seems like a useful tool as Leopold describes it and Calicott’s paper lends it a sort of structural support, but it is ultimately useless without an examination of how to bring the ethic into practice and of what that will actually mean as far as daily life is concerned.

Conservation Implies a Previous "Oops"

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.”

“The Human Stake” & The Land Ethic

I’ll start by saying that I agree with Leopold’s position that the land itself deserves some form of protection, a view which I think most people, without any real stake in the exploitation of the land (such as maybe an oil company, etc.) ultimately agree with. I know I personally feel that way because I love nature. It’s not something that I really need to argue with myself about or subject to critical thought in the same way that I might love a piece of music; I just do. Leopold and a lot of environmentalists, I’m sure, feel the same way. They find value in the land for personal reasons – reasons that don’t need to be justified because they just feel right.

The problem here is that when Leopold needs to convince others that his view of the land is the correct view and the self-interested economic view of the land is harmful, he has to resort to the kind of personal feeling about the land that fuels his desire for conservation in the hopes that others will adopt this view. This is difficult – how can one argue in terms of personal feeling? He claims that it is inconceivable that “an ethical relation to the land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value” (171). Callicott, quoting Scott Lehmann, points out that “his argument is homocentric” in that it appeals to the “human stake in preservation” (184). This is really the question I want to pose: Is it that the land itself really does have value, completely independent of human interest in, love of, enjoyment of, or use of the land? Or is it that we view the land as being valuable because it provides all of these qualities for human beings? Is there ever really a completely altruistic environmentalist, or do we protect the land because its instrumentally valuable for our happiness? And if that is the case, where is the line drawn for when our economic interests go too far?

A Lack of Reasoning

Leopold has qualms with notions of “self-interest” yet, as Callicott admitted, it seems much of land ethics depends upon what philosopher Scott Lehmann refers to as “enlightened self-interest” (184). Callicott comes to Leopold’s defense, arguing that this self-interest, though necessary to land ethics, is such that it “is not discernible to the participating individuals” (185). It seems this is because Callicott is not even referring to individual self-interest, but collective. He compares the future self-interest of humanity to the interest of the land, and all encompassing it.
Though hesitant to be labeled cynical, I am inclined to believe this is the only smidgeon of incentive provided by Leopold or Callicott for one’s participation in land ethics. For individuals, it is not convenient to abide by this ethic. One of the leading necessities for followers of the ethic is to reject the notion of land as property to be utilized without feeling obligated towards its well-being. I will concede that I think this environmental responsibility is important, but reasoning for environmental responsibility should not stem from abstract concepts of love, sympathy and respect, and lead towards ends of beauty and integrity.
For what reasons do individuals truly have for abiding by the land ethic? Humanity is threatened with Leopold’s prophetic warning, that “the conqueror role is eventually self-defeating.” But does Leopold ever establish the intrinsic value of biotic communities, such that we humans should feel morally responsible for ensuring their equal consideration in our every-day decisions? I am hesitant to affirm this.
Though slightly unrelated, this brings me to the question of human rights as separate from the guidelines of land ethics. In defending Leopold against the counter-argument proposed against land ethics, Callicott compares the human and biotic communities to country and state citizenships. He notes that as a citizen of a community or family, some moral responsibilities are required outside the realm of responsibilities required as a citizen of the country. He likens this to certain moral responsibilities we are responsible for as humans which do not apply as members of the biotic community. In this way he justifies principles of individual human worth and dignity defending against claims that land ethics supports “massive human diebacks” (182). I find these two situations incomparable. The membership Callicott refers to in addition to membership to land ethics gives “human rights” and “individual human worth and dignity,” which seem like extremely significant responsibilities. To use his comparison is to say that there generally could be such a disparity in responsibilities between a country and a community within that country. And, as noted earlier, there is another generalization of human rights, human worth and human dignity. Where did these concepts come from? He offers no supporting reasoning or rationale to suddenly incorporate these concepts into his argument. It was these generalizations, in addition to the lack of reasoning and explanations that kept me from fully appreciating the concept of land ethics as a realistic possibility.

Leopold's Land Ethic Potential

Aldo Leopold makes a very strong case for his land ethic which stresses the symbiotic relationship to Earth emphasizing the significance in valuing the “land” or biotic community for its own sake. This land ethic or theory of conservation attempts to relay the concept of humans changing from conquerors to citizens that demonstrate respect with fellow members. Conservation therefore is the “state of harmony between men and land."
I fully agree with the notion that the separation of humans and nature is an incompatible idea as humans are as much part of and dependent upon the biotic community as the soil, the water and the flora and fauna. Moreover, Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic is extending the relationship between humans and the environment in that it broadens the idea of a community to the land. This membership places upon us certain obligations and responsibilities to do all that we can to ensure the healthy continuance of this interdependence and symbiotic relationship. For Leopold, he argues that the health of the land can be seen when this relationship “tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.”
While Leopold constructs this theory as an attempt to extend on a social consciousness, I am not fully sure that the argument reaches its fullest potential. I feel that the most difficult part for followers of Leopold’s land ethic is to fully understanding why, exactly, we should have an ethical responsibility to the land. Leopold at times uses the model that the earth should be considered an organic whole. The biotic pyramid is examined which involves different links and chains as a foundation of energy. Man’s invention in this pyramid has increased change in ecosystems and this has been more comprehensive than evolutionary changes. Therefore, Leopold calls out that it’s our instincts that make us compete but it is our ethics that should cooperate. I whole-heartedly agree that the less violent a change is (man-made speaking), the greater the possibility of readjustment in the pyramid.
But, I am not completely sure that he is able to fully explain his philosophy of land ethics and fully relay his message of why exactly we need an ethical responsibility that extends to the land, other than being a part of this biotic community. Why is it important to keep a good harmony between men and land? I disagree with Callicott in thinking that Leopold’s problem lies in its practical implications and its deviation from philosophical ethics. I think that that is precisely why Leopold has had such an impact on the environmental conservation movement. But, there is a reason that we are still in the state of an environmental crisis. Is that because Leopold’s argument lacks a comprehensive eco-centric land ethic that combats anthropocentrism?
Most importantly, I agree that there should more of a focus on the relationships between human and their environments. Education of conservation is extremely important but, like Leopold suggested, there needs to be more of an emphasis on the inter-dependence with others and nature. It is important to examine the degree of connectedness you currently have with yourself, individuals, your community and nature. This should be the type of education in regards to content and quality focusing on this co-existence ideology between you and the environment (the biotic community); so to further the notion and draw upon an ethic that you can enhance yourself, society, the environment, and ultimately the world.

Leopold is on the right track

Leopold definitely has the right idea about the fact that humans need to see themselves as part of a community. The kind of respect that results from this is the only salvation for earth in my opinion. He makes a compelling point about the fact that man never fares well as conquerer. The problem is that man is conquering. It is in human nature to do this, and no "well its never worked for you so far" is going to stop man from conquering. I in no way think that it is acceptable, but I do not think that his lesson is sufficient.
I also must admit that i doubt, but don't condemn, his theory on education being the key. Maybe i am biased by my own lack of faith in humanity. I feel like education has been trying for a while now and hasnt gotten anywhere significant enough in terms of restoration. It has made headway though. I guess I needed Leopold to speak of some profound form of education that would be used as a tool so that something new seemed to come to the table in the form of education.
I agree with him that the government needs to have less influence and the private landowners need to assume more control. It is on the individual, working as part of the whole, to make the difference. Giving all that power to the government is dangerous and just pathetic. People need to grow up and stop asking "mommy" to do everything for them.
I agree with him that the released stored energy of the pioneer period postponed the penalties of violence, or at least that this should be seriously considered. This is s scary thought, and i think it could be used to scare people, which sadly is te best way to cause action in people. There is a chance that our actions are going to come back ten fold soon.
Lastly, I agree with him that lengthening reclamation projects is crucial to making things better. They are too short at this time and i believe this to be a big problem. This seems logical and possible. If the projects themselves are happenining (which is the biggest challenge) then lengthening them is really not that hard.

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.

Seeking Value in The Land Ethic

Aldo Leopold holds that humans must find themselves not as owners or controllers of the land but members or citizens of an entire community. It seems that he is argueing that we have only met two of three components of "ethics"...the first being between with the "relationship between individuals" and the second between "individuals and society". The third that must still be realized and understood is an "ethic dealing with man's relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it" (Leopold, 164). He finds this possible and necessary...but his whole piece makes it difficult to realistically find ourselves reaching this point, especially because of how selfish and self-centered our species is. A majority of our actions and efforts are due to, which he supports, economic gain and the misguidance from education about nature and the environment. He believes we are "head[ing] away from, rather than toward, and intense consciousness of land" (Leopold, 171). I am not sure if Leopold provides enough support for our race reaching a point of such consciousness. He belives it is possible, but I find that he is quite doubtful through much of the text and provides more uncertainty for the reader when he states that scientists are unsure of "what makes the community clock tick" while the ordinary citizen puts assurance in scientists actually knowing this. If scientists are so unsure of how communities and ecosystems work, and how they are truly being affected by human activities, how can Leopold support the point that our current relationship to land, being more of a conqueror than a member, is so harmful and not what the land ethic should include?

Increased education, or ecological literacy, is not the answer to the ecological crisis

In his article, Leopold states that our most serious obstacle in the evolution of “The land ethic” is the fact that our educational and economic systems are headed away from instead of toward the consciousness of land. Here he is saying that we need more education about the land in order to get people to believe in and follow the land ethic. He even goes as far as to say later that higher education seems to deliberately avoid ecological concepts. I’m not sure exactly how I feel about that statement since we are studying ecological concepts in higher education courses right now. But what I really wanted to focus on was both of these educational statements by Leopold, but also something Calliot said in his piece that relates. He states that the key to emergence of a land ethic is, simply, universal ecological literacy.
I agree that when people have more knowledge about things they are more likely to change their minds or realize their faults and change their actions about certain things. So, on that respect I agree that more education and ecological literacy among the human inhabitants of the world would most likely do a great deal to decrease the destruction of the earth. But do I think that the reason people haven’t accepted the land ethic is due to lack of education? No. Do I think that if people were more ecologically literate they would accept the land ethic? No. Like, I said, the increase education would help but I do not, by any means think it would be the cure or the “key to emergence of a land ethic”. I think the way people treat the earth are long ingrained ideas about how they should think about other species and even trees and water. I think if a person can dump their chemical wastes into the ocean, education about ecology wouldn’t change his actions. He most likely knows he is doing something morally wrong, whether because he is “harming” the waters, or the man downstream. He knows it’s not right and I don’t think education is the answer. I’m not sure what my answer is but I know more education may slightly help, but not enough to make a difference.

Where do we stand in this community?

As I read through Leopold’s article I kept coming back to the same question, “If we are members of this community are we equals or is there a hierarchy of value?” Luckily my answer was at least addressed in the more philosophic paper by Callicott but still not entirely fleshed out. Toward the end of this essay he explores the objections of many philosophers who have encountered the land ethic and come to the conclusion that it is a, horror because of its emphasis on the good of the community and its deemphasis on the welfare of the individual members of the community.”(p182) After taking enough philosophy courses I can see the fear. Philosophy is for the individual and for the individual to discover and then live the best way of life. This best way of life has the necessary good of living on this earth but to say that non-rational beings are on equal terms as the human would be absurd. I would have to agree and therefore I could not understand the claim of the land ethic. Callicott tries to explain that in the same way as being part of a larger political community does not stop you from being part of the small community of your family the community described in the land ethic will not stop you from being part of our “family community” of humankind. However encouraging that this statement might be it is not an answer to the question of hierarchy of moral value. He, like Leopold continues to call upon upon ancient civilizations to aid us in our understanding of how to live in this community. Does that mean we are to take step backward, destroy all that our human capabilities have created through technology? Or does it mean that we have to limit our endeavors and if so when so that we don’t limit our humanity?

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.

A Practical Land Ethic

Personally I do not feel that Leopold makes a strong claim towards the fact that the land and creatures that dwell upon have intrinsic value, however I also felt that he made a very strong case as to why the Land Ethic should be adopted. I greatly appreciated the unique way in which Leopold approaches the subject because it addresses aspects of human nature while avoiding being bogged down in an overly philosophical foundation. I am not convinced that humanity will actually evolve this land ethic for many of the reasons he states such as separation from nature, however Leopold’s claim that humanity is valuing nature primarily in economic terms which the planet cannot sustain seems to becoming increasingly evident.
Leopold believes that people need to have certain feeling of love and respect of the land in order for there to be a land ethic, but he states no reason as to why human’s should develop such feelings however personally I believe it to be a part of human nature to have such feelings towards the earth though of course I cannot prove that that is not merely my subjective experience. In my opinion Leopold is not putting forth a philosophical reason to respect nature, rather he is using his observations of the world to show that current human actions are unsustainable and bad for the planet, and giving an arguably practical way of avoiding an environmental crisis. I think the fact that he is trying to find practical solutions is made obvious by the fact that he is using governmental solutions as stopgaps before this new land ethic evolves within humanity. While I personally believe Leopold's ethic to be "practical" in the fact that it seems a logical solution and avoids some philosophical arguments, I am not trying to indicate that it would be easy to implement without Leopold's attitude of respect for the land "evolving" in the human race.

Is a Land Ethic Enough?

In his work, The Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold asserts that we currently do not have and thus need a "land ethic"- an ethic dealing with the relationship between human beings and the land (which is meant to include all biotic and abiotic factors within our environment). He argues that as of right now, we only regard the land (our environment) in terms of its instrumental value to us and that we do not acknowledge its intrinsic value, or the value it possesses in and of itself. Leopold's proposed land ethic implies that humans are a part of a larger biotic community and that we are in no way superior to or deserving of higher moral consideration than any other member of this community.
Although I do agree that it could certainly benefit and help improve the condition of the environment for more human beings to possess ethical attitudes towards other species and the land in general, Leopold does not adequately explain in this excerpt of his work how a land ethic could actually be implemented in human societies and how exactly this would solve our current ecological crisis. It would be difficult if not impossible to change the attitudes of many individuals in our society, especially in regard to the environment, which is viewed by many people as merely a reserve of natural resources with only instrumental, economic value and no inherent worth. Despite the obvious fact that our environment is being damaged due to anthropogenic activities, many people still do not believe that the land, or the environment, deserves any kind of moral consideration or further protection.
Even if somehow Leopold managed to persuade every human being to change his/her attitude toward the environment and everyone thus possessed a land ethic, this would not necessarily lead to the improvement of the condition of our environment. While changing our attitudes towards nature is certainly important in provoking beneficial change, we also must take action to make changes happen. Although Leopold does mention that implementation of solutions to our environmental problems is a necessity, he does not specifically discuss the importance of or need for any kind of improvement in current legislation (e.g., the Endangered Species Act) for the purpose of protecting the integrity of our environment and preventing further damage from being done.

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.

Realistic environmental education?

Leopold has some well founded ideas in his piece "Ecocentrism: The Land Ethic". One, that rather than being conquerors, we must instead work with the land and other creatures around us to maintain a balance and sustainable ecosystem. This is an all too true statement. As the most intelligent creatures on the planet, we fall into the idea that we know what is best or acceptable for the environment, when in fact, we are naive to think we know such things. Instead, what we should be doing is attempting to use our intelligence to find smarter ways of coexistence; alternatives to
I think that his views on the obligations as human beings are also insightful. I think it is a by-product of our busy, materialistic society. He talks about plants and animals that do not have a "economic value" yet are vital to the integrity and stability of the biotic community. This is widespread occurrence that needs to be changed on the individual level. However, I'm not sure that a change can be made such that Leopold thinks. He uses the example that the "true modern is separated from the land..." and this I believe is a vital part of the problem. The majority of our food and water come from places we have never seen nor been involved with, so how can we appreciate what factors hold importance in these fields?
My question for Leopold is this: Do you think that we can make the necessary changes to our culture to change our perceptions on the importance of the land and biotic community? He briefly touches on it at the end of the reading in saying "The fallacy the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, is the belief that economics determines all land-use" but does not delve any deeper.I personally would say no. Not until there is a pressure situation such as mass drought or failing agricultural lands to institute such a large-scale reformation. I see the masses continuing along a path of selfishness until the ecosystems we require to survive are barely able to sustain us. I think that while education for a "gentler and more objective criteria for its (land) use" are needed, they do not exhibit the degree of seriousness that is needed for change. We need a more radical and driven view; a "change or else" type of view that calls to the individual and makes it his/her personal responsibility to institute a change.

After reading what Aldo Leopold has to say about his concepts that community is the, or will be the key to obtaining some kind of land ethic. It seems that we must value the land because it helps us to live and survive and that currently we do not. We only see the land as property and something that is disposable when in truth it is not. He also seems to stress that conservation is the right path and that it is the common ground that lies between men and land. When talking about animals such as birds, Leopold says, “One basic weakness in a conservation system… is that most members of the land community have no economic value… When one of these non- economic categories is threatened and if we happen to love it, we invent subterfuges to give it economic importance” (pgs. 166-167). This point he makes, I completely agree with. In today’s world it seems that only the resources that can make money or are an important process to make money are valued more than anything that does not encourage the cycle. I agree with Leopold, that we need to value the land more and not take it for granted, because we are lucky to have it in the first place. Leopold also says,” quit thinking about decent land- use as solely an economic problem.” (pg. 172). I believe that Aldo Leopold is right that conservation is the stepping stone for having a better land ethic, how we should go on to do that on a global scale is a puzzler to me, but I think if we at least can start doing it more in the U.S. we may yet find a way to spread it to other countries.

Great Idea but Needs More

Aldo Leopold argues that the fundamental reason that conservation attempts have been so unsuccessful in the past is because people are only willing to take conservative efforts when it is economically beneficial for them. He groups people into two categories: A and B. Those in category A, he claims sees the land and all non-human things that inhabit it as a commodity to be used for any purpose we choose. The other group sees the land as "biotica", or in other words a part of a larger living community. Leopold believes that would should strive to be a part of the second group, which respects nature and understands that importance of preserving it. Most people, unfortunately fall into category A. While I agree with Leopold that we should respect the earth and carefully consider how we use it, the question he fails the address adequately is how do we make people care about conservation?
Leopold offers interesting insight into why the land is important such as that it is a part of the larger biotic community. We do not yet fully comprehend what long-term affects our exploitation of the earth will have, and it is difficult to predict what benefits the vanishing species of flora and fauna will have in eventually repairing our world.
Yet Leopold gives no indication as to how we make people who are only interested in the economic value of the earth believe this notion and understand the importance of conservation. He acknowledges that the "evolution of a land ethic is and intellectual as well as an emotional process" (172). There must be a total change in mindset in order for Leopold's ideas about environmental conservation to be taken seriously and utilized by those who only see the instrumental value of the land. While I think that Aldo Leopold is on the right track when it comes to determining how the earth should be treated and why conservation has failed in the past, he needs to provide more guidance and instruction in order to make his dream of saving our planet a reality.

Conservation is Good....But Why, Aldo??

Aldo Leopold articulates his concept of land ethic: that it is evolutionarily necessary that the society of man develops responsibility towards the land as an extension of community. Leopold thinks that our concept of philosophical ethics grew from our ecological ethic, that is that we place limits on our behavior for our survival. Because we depend so intimately on land for our survival, we must value it.

While Leopold makes some good points, like the fact that we cannot know the full ecological impacts of our actions because the natural world is so complex. However, I have issues with two things in his piece. First, he doesn't clarify how our ethic should translate into action. He says "...ethic of course cannot prevent the alteration, management, and use of... ‘resources’ but it does affirm their right to continued existence” (p164). He merely asks us to recognize that we are a member of a community and not that community's conqueror. The extent of his explanation is that aspects of nature should be valued beyond their use for economic self-interest, and that private landowners should exercise conservation.

Second, he fails to really articulate why exactly we should care. Yes, it’s true that we depend on land for our survival, but we’ve been abusing it for centuries and seem to be (even if only barely) doing okay. He doesn’t argue that land has inherent value, or that as a creation of God it deserves respect. In fact, the closest argument he makes for conservation is that some aspects of land that are without economic value are important because they are interconnected with those aspects that do have economic value. All throughout the piece, he argues that we must look beyond economic value, but then reduces conservation to economic terms. In this way, he contradicts himself.

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Sept. 24 by Leopold and Callicott.

Jumbled thoughts on the Reverence for Life

Albert Schweitzer’s piece is dedicated to the idea of ‘reverence for life’, which is awe for the mysteries of life. The ethics for reverence for life makes no distinction between higher and lower beings. We are all connected in this universe whether you are a flower in an open field or a human being. Schweitzer believes that we should only stamp out life if necessary, never from thoughtlessness. That we should seize every moment we have to feel happiness for helping other living things and guarding them against suffering and pain. Schweitzer also rejects the idea of anthropocentrism, which is the belief that humans are the center of life on Earth. Schweitzer emphasizes that there should be no hierarchical distinctions between different forms of life. Yet, who gets to draw that line, meaning, who are we to decide who is a higher or lower creature anyhow?

Besides that, I got a taste of Schweitzer’s philosophy of the reverence for life in his illustration of the farmer who mows down a thousand flowers in his meadow, in order to feed his cows. After doing so, the farmer should be on guard, as he turns homeward, not to decapitate some flower by the roadside, just by way of thoughtlessly passing the time. For then he sins against life without being under the compulsion of necessity. So it is necessity that drives us? We can sin as long as we are under the impression that it is a necessity? That is where it gets a little foggy for me. Therefore, deliberate, necessary, and rational actions as opposed to thoughtless ones are central to his philosophy of reverence for life.

Agree with Schweitzer but seems improbable

I agree with Schweitzer’s theory of Reverence for Life and what he has to say about the conflict between contemporary ethics and the will to live. However, it doesn’t seem realistic that people would adapt this view. On a personal level, I agree that all living being with the will to live have intrinsic value. I also agree with the idea that we truly don’t face ethical dilemmas unless we put are well being or lives at risk. As I said earlier, I believe in treating all animals kindly and as if they are inherently valuable and personally I am a vegetarian. But If I see a wasp flying around in my room, I want them to go away as soon as possible and If there wasn’t a window to open, I would try to kill them, this is something that I expect most people would do.
I don’t think that his ideas will be main place until the majority of people become conscious and realize the impact of their actions which I won’t think will happen any time soon. There are many arguments that can be made against this, for instance what about people that are in Acoma, would it be ethical to kill them because they don’t have a will to live. Plants have defense mechanisms to keep predators from eating them; it isn’t conscious but it would be some form of desire to live. People could also argue that the conditions animals are put them in stockyards, that they lost the will to live so it would be doing them a service to end their lives.

Reverence for Life

One could argue that Schweitzer’s theory of Reverence for Life, or of “practicing the same reverence for life toward all will-to-live, as toward my own” (132), is too idealistic to be applied to the real world, and that no person could fully adhere to it. I would contend that this is not the case. The ethic of reverence for life posits that the maintenance and enhancement of life, the effort to bring it to its greatest potential, are the only things that it counts as good in themselves. It is rather realistic in that it leaves the particulars up to the individual—it is the responsibility of the individual to decide in each situation which course of action to take, and the choice ultimately lies in the hands and conscience of the individual to do what seems to best fit into this ethic. The principle is that no life must be injured unnecessarily, and each human being must decide, by looking within, which acts may be considered necessary.

One might then argue that the ethic is so subjective that an individual could follow it, and rationalize unnecessary injury to life as being necessary. Hidden in this argument is the judging of others, rather than oneself, that is avoided in Schweitzer’s ethic; however to address this point, this may be true in some cases, but for the majority of human beings, I believe that such self delusion would be nearly impossible if one was honest and genuine in the serious undertaking of this ethic in daily life. I believe that if each individual adopted this view, their own feelings of right and wrong would stem from the same place, and generally lead them to similar behaviors. To a large extent, there is one simple human task which is necessary to follow the ethic of reverence for life, and that is mindfulness—one must maintain a focused awareness of the existence of all varieties of life, their value, and the way one’s own thoughts and actions affect them. In addition, if one were to start at the beginning from Schweitzer’s position of “ethical oneness with existence,” a new way of life would arise, and the very way in which one related to the world would have to change, out of the necessity of avoiding cognitive dissonance, following the adoption of this ethic.

Schweitezer: Great idea though not scientifically just

Albert Schweitzer is extremely enthusiastic about the preservation of life; however he is blind to fact that Earth cannot be a utopia. He states that it is “good to maintain and cherish life, but evil to manipulate and destroy it.” Humans, in his eyes, are destructive and care of no other beings’ existence aside from their own. Unfortunately since Schweitzer isn’t a biologist, he tends not to see the purpose of the existence of a species. A species sole design is to exploit its resources while hindering the spread of other species in an attempt to become more prolific than their competitors. Since each organism is maximizing their reproductive success while at the same time developing defenses to counter the thwarting attempt imposed by other species, a utopia is unachievable in the biological sense. However this does not mean that humans must fall into the same category and destroy everything. Instead, humans should remain neutral and strive not to exploit animals while at the same time not interfering with natural processes.
Schweitzer states that he has “become a persecutor of the little mouse which inhabits my dwelling, a destroyer of the insects which desire to breed there, no less a wholesale murderer of the bacteria which may endanger my life.” Here we see Schweitzer feeling compassionate about these mice that humans have made seem vile. In all actuality it is mice that carry more bacteria as a whole (mainly in their defecation) than insects. Mice can produce far more offspring to become problematic than most pestilent species of insects. Also, it is unheard of for insects to damage the infrastructure of the house, with the exception of termites. Mice and rats however are not opposed to chewing wall board, severing electrical wire or attacking the house’s inhabitants. It is with all this in mind that I think as good as Albert Schweitzer’s intentions are, they are unrealistic and not supported by scientific data.