The Land Ethic - Essay Example

The Land Ethic

Introduction

The land ethic is an extension in the coverage of the community – to include water, soils, animals and plants – which can all be classified as the land. Aldo Leopold insists on new relationships to be established between nature and humans – which will define a new set of conservation standards. Leopold bases his arguments on the role of ethics in perpetuating the mutual benefit of all – by including the welfare of non-human elements. The consideration of land as a part of the community should be based on the concept of ecology – with an ethical extension that; love and respect need to be offered to the land. According to him, the people play a critical role in preserving and protecting the extension of the community. This draws to the ecological conscience, which impels conviction of personal responsibility for the welfare of the land. Central to the theoretical model, is the decent use of the land – not as an economic strategy, but also the wellbeing of the environment, therefore the need for a close personal association to the land. Therefore, the people need to establish love, feeling, understanding, and faith in the land and its welfare (Leopold, 1960, p. 213-219).

Discussion

Leopold’s holistic model explores the balance of the entire community in arguing for the welfare of the environment. The criticisms of the model include that it puts the interests of the natural phenomena, above that of the humans, who are the patrons of the natural world, which earns them the right to benefit from the natural world. The conceptual foundation of the land ethic declares that the role of man should change from that of – “a conqueror of the land-community,” to make him a universal member of the entire community, who offers respects to the other parts of the land-community. It holds that humans should engage, only, in those things that promote the integrity, beauty, and the stability of the entire land-community. Therefore, the view holds that men are wrong, when they act otherwise.

The preservation of species insists on a change in the view offered to human-generated change to the natural world, where more attention is offered to the value of biological diversity and natural resources in a more general manner. In the constancy of Leopold’s land ethic, economic biology is just a system of exhausting the environment, thus he holds that a long-sighted anthropocentric perspective will be the only basis for the conservation of the natural world. Thinking like a mountain emphasizes on the central thinking of individuals as parts of the ecosystem. This means that individuals should develop a complete realization of the interconnectedness of all the parts within the ecosystem – through the usage of intricate web – of mutual need for each other in the natural environment, rather than thinking as a self-standing entity. This paper is an explicit account of the values of the land ethic model, offering third perspectives to the model and showing support for the more rational perspectives underlying the model (Leopold, 1960, p. 220-226).

Analysis and hidden assumptions: From the discussion on the land ethic, there is the economic land ethic, which centers on the economic value drawn from the land; the utilitarian based land ethic, which holds that the action that present the utmost good for people is right; the libertarian land ethic, which bases on the freedoms of entities, as long as they do not interfere on that of others; and the egalitarian land ethic, which centers on the even distribution of the benefits from the land. From a cross-perspective of the different models, it is evident that the people are the central beneficiaries of the ecosystem. Leopold’s land ethic goes further to propagate the need and the essence of considering the other parts of the natural world, these including water, soil, animals and plants. According to this ethic, what is right is what promotes the good of all these parts of the land. From this ethic, it is evident that there is a hidden assumption that the role of human beings in nurturing these other parts of the land is given central cause. However, there is an implied assumption on the area of its limitation, including that there is no definition of the limit to which the humans can benefit from the care offered to these other parts of the land. From an analytical perspective, it is also evident that the ethic views the land as a web of interconnections of independent parts, all drawing value from one another (Callicott, 1989, p. 75-91).

There is also an assumption that humans are not the rulers, but members of the wide land community, where their role in preserving the other parts of the environment is of central importance. From Leopold’s point of view, each part of the natural world draws its intrinsic value from the entire interconnected nature of all the parts within the natural world. Through this model, there is a hidden assumption that the polarized relationships within the universe do not mean anything towards the perceived natural world. For example, according to the model, the wolf is a friend of the deer-species, when indeed – the wolf will hunt the deer for food. This assumption shows that the model is not fully accommodative of the dynamics of the natural world. There is also a chief assumption that, humans are the main actors in preserving the stability, integrity and the beauty of the natural world. However, the other parts of the natural world are not given attention – in terms of the role they play in preserving the natural balance. From the contribution of humans towards the entire balance, it is also conclusive, that they will express the need to draw from the contribution, a case which is not highlighted in the model. For instance, a farmer will take care of the soil and plants, so that they can get harvest. According to the model, the execution of these natural species from the benefit of humans is wrong. However, it is right on the basis of the economic land ethic. Therefore, it is evident that the balance between the contribution and the benefit to be drawn is not explained (Leopold, 1960, p. 201-211).

Logical implications drawn from the land ethic model include – that ethics is the ecological limitation of the extent to which the struggle for existence is perpetuated. This implies that the land ethic seeks to create a balance, where certain parts of the natural world pursue their wellbeing by threatening the welfare of the others, within the interrelation existing between the environments. For example, the pursuit of the wolves in hunting down the deer-species for food is a struggle for existence, which sustains the wolves and threatens the welfare of the deer-species. According to the model, the ethic seeks to reduce such relationships, which is really a question of creation – thus a close to impossible pursuit to pursue. There is the logical implication that both humans and the other parts of the natural world: water, animals and plants are equal in terms of their need to exist within the natural world. However, this model presents the difficulty that it stands in the way of the value drawn from these natural resources, which serve to help in protecting the natural balance. In simple terms, the land ethic serves to stop the alteration, use and management of these natural resources – propagating their right to continued existence, especially in their natural state. However, this logic can be questioned, with regard to the extent to which the different parts of the natural world can be used or exploited for the benefit of both the other parts of the universe and the human species. An example here is the balance, to exist between herbivorous animals and plants, as these animals exhaust the plant species for their welfare. Also, it gives the implication that humans are the only parts who benefit from the other parts of the natural world – disregarding the set of benefits drawn among the different parts of the natural world. For example: the relationship between carnivores and other animals, as well as between herbivores and plant life (Leopold, 1960, p. 220-226).

The advantage of the land ethic is that it bestows value and need for consideration on all the aspects of the natural world. This is evident from the phrase, “the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for …the fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such (Leopold, 1960, p. 194).” This is in line with any environment protection theory, as the accordance of value and preservation of these species will be a source of value in the present and in the future. The value drawn from the activism of this model includes the income gained from tourism, which forms a substantial proportion of GDP for many nations. The model also shifts attention from preserving these natural forms for their inherent value, but for the role that they play, as parts of the natural world. The model, further, offers a directive into the way the human groups and the rest of nature should relate, from the shift of seeing nature as a part of the entire whole, and not an exhaustible resource. The inherent value provided here, is that, the future of the humans is secured from the change of their views. For instance, from exhausting plant life which absorbs carbon dioxide, human contributes to global warming, which is a threat to global inhabitation. The main disadvantage of the land ethic it leads to polarization of the perspective assumed in examining human nature and actions. This is the case, as the model creates a negative perspective to what are logical patterns of income creation and economic centers. These include the benefit that should be drawn from land resources, the extent to which the land and the resources available should be altered, and the relationship that should exist between humans and the other natural species within the natural world. From the same facts existing within the natural world, some will derive different notions rendering the livelihood models of others as unethical and illogical towards the welfare of the general ecosystem. The priority given to the needs of the natural parts of nature as opposed to giving priority to the needs of humans is a disadvantage of the model. This is the case, mainly because; humans play a critical role in environmental conservation, thus the reliance of the natural world on them (Callicott, 1989, p. 75-91.

In addition to the relatively impossible equality theorized about the members of the community, Leopold’s land ethics model is more theoretical than realistic as compared to other land ethic models. This is the case, mainly because the model delineates the model from the needs of humans and the inherent pursuit to survive in the natural world. For instance, the model would argue that the place to be taken by human residential areas would be, better covered by natural phenomena like rocks or forests. This can be argued to be the case, from comparing the model with other land ethics like the economic land ethic, which holds that the value of the natural world is the benefit it offers to humans. The model, also, offers consideration to supporting systems – which, according to Leopold, would be eliminated for their lack of value. Secondly, Leopold criticizes the model as one that leaves the role of preserving the environment to the government, which is largely not true. Therefore the model is considerably shifted away from the reality of the interdependence in the natural world. This is also evident in the argument that natural enemies like foxes and deer-species have a role to one another, when there is no possible mutuality between them (Callicott, 1989, p. 75-91).

From a critical evaluation of the arguments and the value described through the land ethic, it is clear that ideas from different perspectives are incorporated, including natural science, literature, ethics, aesthetics, economics and public policy. Through the model, the theorist gives attention to the readers’ perspective, inviting other views into the conversation and denotes communities as participants in the broad natural world. From this perspective, the theorist leaves the model to be embraced by new actors in the future, through which it can be developed further. They also imply that the theory is flexible to changes in scientific insights and shifts in founding principles, and that it gives attention to the connections existing within the natural world. The ethic, further, seeks the protection of the different natural forms, including the water-borne and the wider realm of economic conservation in a meaningful manner. Based on the strengths of this model, it is clear that it is a model which can be developed and used to address the environmental and animal protection theories, which often are conflicting subjects. From the wide coverage of the model, it is clear that it deserves attention and focus towards realizing the preservation of the natural world (Leopold, 1960, p. 220).

Conclusion

The land ethic is the enlargement of the community to cover other natural phenomena like water, soil, plants and animals, as parts of the natural world – together with human groups. The argument is that these phenomena should be preserved and maintained for the common good of the entire natural system. Emphasis is given, that man is a part of this world, and not the conqueror of these resources. The logical implication to be drawn from the model includes the disregard of the natural enmities existing between different species, for example that between wolves and the deer-species. The advantage s of the model include that it presents the value of the natural world, which is evident from the value drawn from it in its natural forms. An example here is natural phenomena tourism. However, the model is more theoretical than realistic, because it delineates the natural needs and existence systems within the natural world. Also, the model is worth, of being developed, as it approaches the problem of natural preservation from a multi-perspective approach – incorporating disciplines like ethics, aesthetics, policy and history in exploring environmental protectionism.