The Land Ethic

Aldo Leopold’s The Land Ethic attempts to establish an ethic for humanity’s relationship with the land; something he believes does not currently exist. Leopold makes the case that the land is seen as only an economic factor. Swamps are drained, soil is exhausted and eroded, and biotic diversity is ignored for the select few economically valuable plants, animals, and ecosystems. He questions why this destruction is socially acceptable, but also how the conservation movement has made so little progress against it. He defines an ecological ethic as “a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence” and relates this to a philosophical ethic of  “a differentiation of social and anti-social conduct.” This relation is key to his argument when he posits his land ethic, “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.” For his land ethic to work requires a change in attitude from land as economic resource alone, to something inherently valuable. Then approving or disapproving social reactions must follow actions that impact the environment.

I found his argument extremely effective in content and organization. He defined what an ethic is, demonstrated the lack of a land-ethic and the damage done, and then presented a simple foundation. Furthermore he conceded the failures of conservationists at making significant steps beyond economics, and advancing “good intentions...devoid of critical understanding either of the land, or of economic land-use.”

What is striking about this essay to me it how forward looking it is. Presented in 1933, I am unsure how far ahead of his times he was, but it is surprising, and saddening, how relevant an essay from 70 years ago is today. Two quotes that resonated with me: First, “The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.” Second, “A land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.” It is disturbing to me how true both of these statements are today and how little attitudes have changed. The essay made me question myself when Leopold asserted “In out attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial.” Is this not also the same today as in 1933? Human’s environmental impacts have drastically increased, with population, since 1933 and yet we still think replacing light bulbs and recycling are sufficient changes.