Blake Bertagnolli
BIOL 1120
Land Ethic Paper
Part I
Leopold presents the idea that to make any kind of step forward in preserving the
integrity of the land, we must start taking on more ethical views of the land from a private
land owner point of view. If left to the government, we would continue to take one step
forward and two steps back because of the size of the issue. It is too big of an issue for
the government to take on by itself. The private land owner’s must stop pawning off
their responsibility of land ethics to the government. In order for the private land owner
to act more ethically, he/she must know what damages he/she is making in the first place.
In order for the awareness to be where it needs to be there needs to be a higher level of
education on land ethics. Leopold makes this point as well when he says that land ethics
must be recognized from the private owner’s responsibility.
Leopold further goes on to explain in his article that even with the implementation of
better education, one must want to care about the preservation of the land. He argues that
people, even well educated people, will continue to care less about the preservation of the
land than the cultivating of new, more entertaining, things. Even if this means that by
doing so will eventually extinct parts of the land from it’s ability to self sustain itself. If I
understand correctly, Leopold does not argue that we need to eliminate ourselves
completely from utilizing parts of the land for our own pleasure or use. Leopold argues
that we are to be responsible enough to keep it to a level to where the land will continue
to be self sufficient.
Part II
As I think about what my own conservation philosophy is I am left with a little guilt. I
look at conservation from a stand point of delegation. My philosophy has been to let the
conservation professionals take care of these issues. Because of my lack of knowledge
on the subject, and lack of excitement about it, I have never taken on a more active role in
conservation.
I really like thinking in terms of being members and citizens of the land instead of
conqueror. It helps put conservation into perspective because it makes you look at the
land as a living thing as apposed to an object. When putting this idea to practice it’s
easier to be more conservation minded. For example, when we shop for our food we
would be more inclined to stay away from products packaged with materials that are
harmful to the land. We would think twice about letting our water run if we thought
about how wasting water hurts the land. After all, would we continue doing something if
we new that by doing that we were hurting our kids; living things?
In general, I would say that our land relation today is still economic. We as a society
look at the land as being an object for our privilege. We take advantage of it more than
we should. When we see an empty space of land, we tend to think of it as real-estate to
build a shopping center or housing community.
Extending land ethics to members of my community, both human and nonhuman
members, would mean using less water, buying products where the packaging didn’t
harm the environment, driving more economic vehicles or using public transportation,
living more frugally, recycle, etc. It would mean we need to preserve enough of the land
to where it can sustain itself. This is tricky to accomplish because it would take
convincing the community to adopt standards of living that may be less comfortable than
their current state of living.
Leopold’s statement: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” doesn’t mean
that the integrity of the biotic community supersedes the concerns for its individual
members in all circumstances. Leopold explains in his article that our responsibility is to
co-exist in a way that doesn’t result in the extinction or elimination of a member
completely. An example of where the biotic community doesn’t supersede the concerns
of its individual members is our decision to build a community of houses to live in. It
does, on the other hand, become wrong when we decide to build housing on all parts of
the land, leaving land extinct from it’s ability to self sustain itself.
When thinking about what’s more motivating to me, beauty of the land or duty of the
land, I lean toward beauty. Beauty of the land is definitely more entertaining. I believe
that I have definitely started thinking more in terms of my duty to the land though. I
don’t think my duty to the land will ever supersede the beauty of the land, but my
awareness to my duty to the land will continue to grow.
My land ethic has emanating primarily from self interest. It’s natural for most people to
think in selfish terms. This is not the way we should be looking at land ethic though. If
we as a society thought more in terms as “ours” instead of “mine” we will make longer
strides in our efforts to conserve the land.
Part III
This exercise was useful for me. Leopold’s view of land conservation doesn’t align
perfectly with my views, but he has helped open my eyes to a new way of thinking. I
have never thought of our land as a living member of my community before. This has
made land conservation interesting for me, which I believe is the key to getting society
more involved in land conservation. We need to make it more interesting and relevant to
our personal life.