Nick Snarr

Bio 1120

This Land is Our Land

In his essay “The Land Ethic”; Aldo Leopold makes a dramatic plea to modern culture.

He asks it to expand its community-based ethic beyond the scope of human self-interest

to include all of the earth. In his words “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries

of the community to include soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.”

(203).

He begins with a definition of ethics, how they relate to the community and a question

of society’s conscience. Ethics is defined philosophically as socially acceptable behavior

and ecologically as a limit on what an individual can do to survive. The philosophical

definition is an abstract concept, where the ecological is a pragmatic one. Both define a

rule set that evolved from a sense of community. The driving force behind ethical

evolution is the social conscience. The question postulated is: to what extent is the

natural world included in the social conscience? The answer he leads to is: not enough.

In his estimation, the feasibility of modern economical based land ethic is insufficient

considering the fluidity and fragility of the “Land Pyramid”. The land pyramid is a

construct offered to replace the incomplete idea of “the balance of nature”. The pyramid

is founded on soil with tiers made of organisms that are common in what they consume.

Each subsequent tier is nourished by consuming members of the previous tier. The

modern land ethic is based on what use is most economical for supporting only the
human element. This is not only ignorant of the entire structure; it is also ignorant of

the other organisms that share the same tier with humans.

The need for an evolved ethical sense is then reflected in the philosophical division

between natural commodity conservation and preserving the intrinsic value of the

natural biotic environment. This division is illustrated by the difference between

agronomy and a complete view of forestry. The agronomic philosophy employs soil as a

means to grow trees. The trees themselves are then a commodity that can be harvested

for use. Anything else found in the forest is not considered by the agronomist that

studies the forest with an eye for wood production. A complete view of forestry

recognizes the intrinsic value of the entire forest and seeks preservation of the entire

ecosystem it contains. To subscribers of the complete forest philosophy, it is not enough

to claim a forest conserved if all you do is replace the trees.

In summary; purely material considerations for land use leads to an incomplete ‘Land

Ethic’. As ethics are a social construct, it falls to society to incorporate consideration of

the land into its actions and thereby evolve a more complete ethics.

Leopold’s Land Ethic is a misnomer. It argues from the proposition that human

society holds the conqueror’s role over the entirety of the biosphere. The concept that in

a few thousand years, an organism as simple as man has mastered and holds reign over

the Earth is naïve at best and is vanity at its worst. Conqueror is a title given to the victor

of a war, and war has no victor if it has no end. In war, factions at odds compete until

one faction is obliterated. Only then can an end to war be declared. Only when there is
no opposition left can a faction be named conqueror. How then, can a man claim the

conqueror’s role when he continues to wage war?

It’s a funny word ‘war’. It conjures images of unmitigated violence met by unmitigated

violence until nothing remains but desiccated husks and a lamentation of what was lost.

Understanding the war of man vs. land requires a broader vision of what war is. There

are many ways of making war. Violence is only one of the extremities. At the other end

of the spectrum is patience. Ethically and tactically, meeting violence with patience is

the superior methodology.

What Leopold suggests as a ‘Land Ethic’ is asking the human master of the Earth to

show mercy to its fragile subject so all life that depends on it can continue. If a man truly

was master of the Earth then this would not only be prudent, it would also be possible.

Instead, the land has its own ethics. It is the ultimate pacifist. It is content to do

whatever is asked of it. If the root system of a forest wants to hold the soil against the

wishes of gravity and rain then the soil will permit it. It is perfectly content in its

ethically superior philosophy to wait for the tree to grow tiresome and release it. War

was waged and as always, the patience of the land is victorious.

Who is righteous in the conflict does not matter. A sense of right and wrong does not

need to enter the discussion. The patience of the land makes no judgment. Morality is a

human construct devised to guide human behavior and influence human ethics. Instead,

the patience of the land should be discussed in terms of the permanent vs. the

impermanent. Patience is the only true permanence in existence. Everything else will
succumb to the patient. If the land is representative of the biotic community then its

integrity does supersede the concerns of its individual members.

In not recognizing the patience of the land, human society has lost the war against

nature. Life was and is conquered by the land. Evidence of this has been seen through

the practices and procedures of science. At the atomic level, there is nothing different

between what is used to make a living organism and the soil that the misguided would

claim lordship over. As a member of the land pyramid, we consume other members of

the land pyramid just as the land will eventually consume us. It is through this process

that the land is used and the land allows life to exist. The same atoms have been reused

through millennia in various configurations. The land’s iron is in our blood, its calcium

is in our bones. Every cell of our being is permeated with its carbon. When

consciousness leaves us, the land will remain. It is folly to think that man can destroy

the land.

In this, all matter is the same. Living or lifeless, this is what connects us all. Through

this understanding, we can learn to admire and respect the land. If we choose instead to

ignore the nature of matter then the land’s ethic will allow us to choke on our own

ashes. In today’s society, man still mostly considers himself apart from the biotic

community but he is growing more aware of it out of necessity. The effects of our recent,

rapid and extreme reshaping of the biotic are forcing us to consider the obligations we

have to maintain our privilege to live.

If the role of Homo sapiens as a conqueror was re-evaluated and society took the true

perspective of a conquered race then conservation would be an easier task. Human self-
interest could be better served by a deeper understanding and interest in the non-

human elements of the land. For these elements are our masters. While we can

appreciate the beauty of it all, we must not lose sight of the duty we have to our master.

If we ignore this duty, we lose the capacity to satisfy our interest in self-preservation.

This interest of self-preservation is the purpose of conservation. The land is indifferent

to our survival. What duty do we have to the Earth? When the water becomes

undrinkable, the air unbreathable and the sun cannot easily penetrate the atmosphere,

the land will continue. Life as we know it might not be able to exist but this does not

mean the land will cease or that life will cease. It may be reconfigured but would it be

gone? Conservation is a duty of self-preservation. It is driven by self-interest in

preserving one’s own species. The Earth will survive no matter our disposition.

In practice, a true appreciation of the ‘Land Ethic’ means subservience to the land. Aldo

Leopold’s ‘Land Ethic’ is a modification the ethics of Human society. A true ‘Land Ethic’

is an ethic not of human design. It is the ethic by which the Land maintains its domain.

As servants of the land, we as a community must adopt an understanding of the land’s

ethic and adjust our own ethics to accommodate. This means is we can no longer afford

to take more than we need. Greed and gluttony may satisfy even the most ravenous for

the interim but it starves the other members of the land community which will starve us

in the long run. This is the ethic of the land. The magnitude of the selfish human desire

to survive is inversely proportional to the length of time that level of human survival can

be sustained. Therefore we can logically deduce that minimalism is the truest form of

conservationism. A more apt name for Aldo’s essay would be “Land Considerations for
the Human Ethic”. The title “Land Ethic” instead describes the ethics of the biotic land

system and the human place within those ethics.

Aldo Leopold’s essay “The Land Ethic” utilizes a form of rhetoric known as an

appeal to emotion. Appealing to the emotions of one’s audience can be an effective

means of capturing minds in the audience by way of the heart but what of the tempered

minds that can reason apart from the heart? If the goal of the essay is to effect social

change then it is an effective essay as it will divide those that are swayed by emotion and

those that are swayed by reason. Division in society causes strife in society. If the goal of

the essay is to evolve a social understanding of man’s place in the world then the essay

fails as a society cannot be divided for there to be an effective and lasting change.

It could be considered that some change is better than no change. As some change will

produce a foundation from which others can be influenced. Much like a lightning strike

can start a fire that will clear a forest and make room for a new ecosystem. If that fire

doesn’t get hot enough then the forest will remain. Aldo’s essay is no different. This is its

greatest weakness; by basing the essay’s reasoning on emotional response his essay

alienates the free thinker.

To be truly effective, the piece needs to consider a complete audience. It needs

something to intrigue the mind as well as the heart. By omitting fuel for critical thought

pertinent to the subject of the essay, the essay itself becomes the subject of critical

thought. This diminishes the value of the essay. Despite the diminished value, the essay

is entertaining and is worth the read on this merit alone.