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.