A Land Ethic

“His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in the community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate.” (Leopold 59)

http://usubluecrew.blogspot.com/2014/10/chriss-declassified-school-survival.html

This quote is the idea behind how people should function in society. It’s human instinct to want to become the best person you can be. You hear a lot about people wanting to live the “American dream.” This stems from the idea that man wants to compete for his place in the community. We all want to do better whether it be for personal satisfaction alone or for your family. We’re all striving to make something of ourselves. The ambitious drive must be balanced with a desire to work together with other aspects of the community. As Leopold said, your ethics prompt you to co-operate, so each individual’s personal standards will tell you the right way to go about ambitions. Striking a balance between the two is key.

“Yes but just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the waters, which we assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye.” (Leopold 60)

http://www.themarthablog.com/2014/10/a-gala-for-hudson-river-park.html

The context of this quote is saying that we sing for the love of our great land, but he’s questioning what we really mean by that. I think he has taken a one sided approach to how we use our natural resources. Yes, we use the water for natural energy, and transportation of resources, but what else is he trying to prove here? These are just a few of the most effective ways to use water in today’s time. We have removed natural wildlife, but times are changing. We can’t leave everything the way it was in 1848. Leopold said, “It is quite invisible to the tourists who finds this wrecked landscape charming.” (Leopold 62) The landscape that he considers wrecked is considered beautiful to others. It’s just a matter of your own perspective, and this applies to all situations, not just altered landscape and the usage of water. 

“When the private landowner is asked to perform some unprofitable act for the good of the community, he today assents only with outstretched palm. If the act costs him cash, this is fair and proper, but when it costs only fore-thought, open-mindedness, or time, the issue is at least debatable.” (Leopold 67)

http://www.polypipeline.com/rejection_does_not_equal_reject/

The opening statement in this quote makes sense of the economic thinking that people have in today’s society. If it won’t better me or my business then why should I have to do it? Here I think is where human instinct kicks in, and ethical obligations are left behind. The confusing part to me is that if there is no economic cost to the private owner, why don’t they implement change? Is it rejection of the idea of conservation or sustainability? Or is it more a lack of their social economic duty or knowledge of their duties? I guess it varies between each specific situation, but I don’t understand why changes are not made, or what effective changes could be made.