The Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold delves into themes of environmentalism, ecological conservations, the limits of the conservation movement and its explanations, differential attitudes towards land use, and the necessity of developing a sustainable ethic towards land and its various components, among others. The Land Ethic is the concluding chapter from Aldo Leopold’s volume A Sand County Almanac, published in 1897.
Aldo Leopold was an American conservationist who specialized in forestry. A Sand County Almanac is his most famous text and he is remembered as the founder of the science of wildlife conservation as well as for his efforts towards developing an ecology-centric approach towards conservation.
The Land Ethic | Summary & Analysis
Leopold’s introductory section seeks to make a point about the development of ethics over time. He cites an incident from Classical Greece where slave women were treated like objects and refers to how over time there has been an extension of entities over whom the consideration of ethics has been applied.
The Ethical Sequence
Leopold starts by defining ethics and the process of its evolution in ecological and philosophical terms. Besides certain differences, both understand ethics as a system of cooperative mechanisms that also become overly complicated over time with the growth of the population and the development of technology. He adds that at the point when he was writing there was no defined land ethic that defined the relationship between individuals, society, and land, which is still treated like property. However, he calls the creation of such an ethic a necessity to develop a guided approach to ecology. He calls ethics community instincts which are still evolving, different from human instincts which are individualistic.
From the beginning itself, Leopold seeks to establish the idea that the one-way approach taken towards the environment by humans where they exploit it for their benefits but do not partake in any obligations for its maintenance is an unsuitable approach. He asserts that as relations have been developed among different entities for mutual co-existence, a similar relationship also has to be built between humans and land considering the former’s dependence on the latter.
The Community Concept
He expands on his idea of ethics as a mode of cooperation, and that the development of land ethic will simply further that relationship to include land (understood as soil, water, plants, animals, etc). He is critical of the degradation and wastage of biotic and abiotic resources around us and argues that humans need to change their role from conqueror to citizen. He asks people to refer to history which shows that the role of a conqueror is self-defeating. He also pushes to understand history in terms of ecological developments, citing the history of the settlement of Mississippi Valley and other examples that prove that it is environmental factors that control the course of events and not vice versa.
Leopold’s principle argument in this section is that humans or science does not fully understand biotic elements as we assume to, and that history stands testament to the limitations of humans in changing or developing landscapes. Therefore, land’s influence in permeating the intellectual life of humans must be acknowledged and taken into account when developing cooperative mechanisms for a peaceful existence.
The Ecological Conscience
Leopold argues that despite a general understanding of what conservation means and the agreement that it is still moving at an extremely slow pace, the developments have been disappointing. While most believe that ramping up education and awareness is the solution, which Leopold agrees to, he also adds a change in content is also necessary. Conservation appeal mostly rests on the idea that it will be profitable to individuals as well and that the government will be undertaking a huge share of the responsibility, providing the example of the Soil Conservation District Law passed in Wisconsin in the 1930s. He argues that such an approach does not solve a problem, and at best reduces the impact of certain negative effects. He identifies the problem in presenting laws or duties towards conservation as choices for which people have to be educated first, instead of an obligation necessary for a functional cooperative system. He argues that conservation will be ineffective if it is understood primarily in terms of economic advantages and disadvantages and made ‘easy’ for humans to work with.
Substitute for a Land Ethic
He continues his critique of using economic motivations for the conservation movement by saying that most entities who occupy the land system are not of exclusive economic value. This means that only those entities are preserved which strikes the fancy of some humans, and that is also done by providing some superficial economic value to that entity. He gives the example of research done by Ornithologists on the role played by songbirds in consuming insects and preventing overpopulation to make a case for their preservation. He elaborates on several loopholes in such an approach, which means that the preservation of certain species and resources is prioritized over others on a random or economic basis. This frequently leads to the erosion or extinction of deprioritized entities or the delegation of their responsibility to the government or private hands, neither of which carry out their responsibilities adequately. He cites how industrialists and private landowners have problems with environmental regulations but do not put any effort into coming up with alternative compensatory strategies. Leopold’s main argument is that viewing ecological responsibilities in terms of economic value leads to unfair prioritization and use of loopholes, and the only solution is the inculcation of a land ethic.
The Land Pyramid
According to Leopold, another element that guides current ethics is the creation of a mental image of the land system. He asserts that the current image understands conservation in terms of maintaining a balance, which is based on ill-informed notions of the environment’s role. The study of ecology has provided a more useful image, one of a pyramid. He provides detailed descriptions of how ecological pyramids work and their extreme and intricate interdependency while simultaneously maintaining perfect harmony. The land is the source and base of all these complicated pyramids and chains and sustains these cycles. Changes to such cycles are normal and evolutionary and chains and entities accordingly adjust them over time by modulating flow mechanisms and energy circuits. However, extreme artificial changes introduced by humans have overbearing effects that are beyond the natural adjustment capabilities of nature. He gives the example of how over-farming reduces the fertility of the soil, industrial pollution affects water’s energy flow, and transportation of species disrupts and overwhelms local circuits. Human alteration leads to significant damage to the land’s capacity to sustain all ecological cycles that constitute the process of survival.
Leopold provides a summary of his analysis of the energy circuit and land’s role and highlights two questions; whether the land can adjust itself adequately to human-induced changes and whether a less-violent solution can be formulated for the same. To attempt to answer this, he discusses the varying capacities of biotas to sustain themselves. He provides brief descriptions of the ecological history of different regions such as Western Europe, North Africa, Asia Minor, Japan, South America, Mexico, and Australia among others. He looks into the varying states of disorganization of their ecological system but asserts that usually, land manages to recover, often with deficits.
According to Leopold, the solution to managing disorganization and preventing further degradation is to limit man-mage changes of a violent nature. In simple terms, Leopold is presenting the argument that the fewer problems man-made changes create, the fewer issues have to be subsequently addressed. He reiterates the fact that science knows very little about intricate dependencies, it is not possible to sufficiently gauge the impact of any artificial changes, hence, it is more reliable to reduce the overall impact of changes by moderating their speed and spread.
Land Health and AB Cleavage
He describes land health as its ability to regenerate itself, conservation as human efforts to improve that capability, and land ethic as the development of an ecological conscience among humans that promotes such behavior. He argues that conservation efforts seem to be divided between two camps; A, which is concerned with economic considerations, and B, focused on ecological balance. He points out that in all sub-fields within the land ecosystem, there exists a gap between both camps. it is closer in some than in others. For example, in forestry, it is possible to reconcile in areas such as forestry wherein afforestation is mostly agreed upon, with differences on issues such as the focus on artificial and natural production or the relative importance of secondary functions of forests. In fields like wildlife, the distance is broader.
Group A wishes for sport and meat and B for the preservation of biotic diversity and other side issues in wildlife. In agriculture, there are differences in issues of the relationship between tonnage, food value, and soil fertility as well as newer developments such as organic farming. Leopold concludes with the argument that all of these debates can be simplified to the original conflict between man as conqueror and man as citizen, and which perspective individuals and communities adopt and practice.
The Outlook
In his concluding section, Leopold argues that the only solution to the limitations and internal divisions of the conservation movement can only be addressed by developing a land ethic that necessitates a closer connection between people and land itself. He argues that people seem to have outgrown their relationship with land, beyond its practical or recreational use, and that in the absence of genuine feelings of love and respect for land, it will be hard to inculcate a viable land ethic among people. For this education is important, which is not synonymous with the scientific study of land-related subjects such as geography, botany, or others, but rather the development of a philosophical appreciation of land beyond its economic use. He pushes individuals to consider questions related to land in their context and apply the same morals and logic to them as they would to other entities. He discredits the analysis of economic determinists who argue that all land use must and does depend on economic considerations, and ideates on other factors such as time, skill, and even faith which influence land use. He rather characterizes the development of a land ethic as social evolution, an intellectual and emotional process, under which land is recharacterized as an entity to which the law or morality is applied, that is, appreciation of what is right for the land and criticism of what is wrong.
The Land Ethic | Background & Context
The uniqueness of Leopold’s approach to a certain extent derives from his background as a naturalist and scientist. It was his deep interest in and knowledge of the discipline that gave him the ability to analyze the deeply intricate relationships that function in our environment and the consequences that are possible with artificial changes. Because of this, he promoted a more comprehensive analysis of ecological problems rather than explaining them and developing their solutions in purely economic terms.
Besides his academic pursuits, another important development was the emergence of a nascent understanding of the detrimental effects of rapid industrialization and urbanization on the natural landscape. America was a relative latecomer to modern industrialization, in comparison to Western Europe, yet it had taken rapid strides, hence Leopold also had a direct first-hand experience of the destruction of the natural environment, of which he provides vivid descriptions in his text. Therefore, it was a time when environmental issues were gaining reactions with some active organizations coming up to look into issues of habitat destruction, species extinction, and resource depletion. As Leopold argues, the movement had not been very successful, yet its existence provided the base upon which further philosophies and plans could be envisioned.
Leopold’s prioritization of an ecology-centric approach can also be located in some preceding environmental philosophies developed by the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. These earlier trends looked into the natural world as a source of spirituality and ethical wisdom, advocating for a deeper connection between humans and nature, and emphasizing the intrinsic value of the natural world. David Thoreau works as one of the earliest naturalists to observe and record processes and changes in his environment is particularly important. Leopold built upon these ideas and developed his own land ethic, which sought to expand the ethical framework beyond human interests and incorporate the well-being of the land as a whole
Another important point of context, though debated, is the relative influence of Darwinism on his ideas. Scholars have argued that the land ethic can be seen as a principled extension of Darwinian science. Since the basis of evolutionary history also lies in the interconnectedness and interdependence of the natural world and the significance of intricate invisible relationships, it forms a crucial basis for Leopold’s conceptualization. Leopold himself observes the development of a land ethic as social evolution, wherein the natural world would inculcate changes and adapt itself to a changing environment, primarily through the development of ethics towards land to improve its relationship with the ecological biosystems.
Leopold seems to integrate ecosystems as a whole within the definition of living organisms that provide an ontological continuity between evolutionary sciences and environmental ethics. If systems are recognized as organisms, they can come within the fold of first, a complicated system of adaptation and biology that requires maintenance, and second, qualify as entities deserving of ethical considerations due to their acknowledgment as living organisms. Therefore, the closing in of the perceived dichotomy between systems and organisms, something which Leopold initiates, may find its background in Darwinian principles.
The Land Ethic | Rhetorical Devices
Leopold’s analysis of the further improvement of the environmental movement lies in the idea that land also needs to come under the list of entities to which we ascribe the logic of morals and ethics. He argues that it is a process of social evolution under which more and more beings have been included as recipients of rights determined by a collective ethic. He points out how in Classical Greece even slave women didn’t have any rights, but over time the definition of ethics and rights has been applied to an increasing set of entities, yet, land still is considered mere property. He uses metaphor to point this out.
‘Land, like Odysseus’ slave-girls, is still property. The land- relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.’
Leopold argues that in order to develop a sustainable and comprehensive ethic towards land, it is important to view land as something deserving of love, affection, respect, and faith. To do so, he frequently seeks to attribute lifelike qualities to land and uses personification.
‘We can be ethical only in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in.’
‘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.’
Since he’s talking in-depth about nature, he also employs imagery to provide descriptions that may evoke vivid perceptions.
‘A plant layer rests on the soil, an insect layer on the plants, a bird and rodent layer on the insects, and so on up through various animal groups to the apex layer‘
He also employs satire and rhetorical questions to make readers think inwardly about the pretenses they hold about their concerns for the environment and how different it is from the actual actions or treatment.
‘This sounds simple: do we not already sing our love for and obligation to the land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters….’
Besides question, another rhetorical technique employed by Leopold is universality. Scholars have studied the frequent use of ‘the’, a definite article in his text, and discussed its persuasive appeal. It is argued that Leopold’s deliberate and occasionally unnecessary placement of ‘the’ before words like land, individual, and biota without referring to any proper nouns is an attempt to show these features and processes as universal, interconnected, and scientific.
Some examples highlight this tendency; ‘the land’, ‘the land ethic’, ‘the land relation’, ‘the plants and animals’, ‘the individual’, ‘the ecologist’, ‘the conqueror’, ‘the community’, and many others.
