Leopold

This paper is from my PHI 331 class and is on Leopold and the Land Ethic.


      There are numerous perspectives that can be taken on our ethical relationship with the land. Today’s values and beliefs present various ideas and ideals that we strive to comprehend. Up to this point, humans have valued land primarily in terms of our growth in relation to the biotic community. Leopold attempts to identify and explain numerous principals between humans and the land. Through its identification of values, Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac suggests that through analyzing the land pyramid, we can gain a deeper understanding of our relationship with nature.
      The land pyramid is described as having the bottom most layer as soil, which plants rest on top of, followed by insects, birds, and rodents on top. It grows upwards to the top which consists of large carnivores. He states that in the beginning (of the earth) the pyramid of life was low and broad, with short and simple food chains. Throughout the evolutionary process new layers have been added and all the layers have expanded (216). This claim is logical and as the world grows our land pyramid and food chains grow as well. However Leopold claims that the soil is that the base of the pyramid and that from it grows the plants that nourish all the living organisms above it. However it is pretty evident that as the earth’s population of species grows the land itself does not grow with it. The idea that the pyramid started with a large base, as there were many single celled organisms, is plausible. Still as Leopold claims the pyramid expands, what he defined as the base of the pyramid clearly cannot physically expand in this sense.
      Leopold claims that in the land pyramid species are grouped not by how they look or where they evolved from, but rather what they eat. As each lower layer provides food for an upper layer, the numerical abundance of the species also decreases (215). Though this claim is conceivable for the purposes of explaining our relationship with the land, it does not fully recognize the full extent of species food cycles. While Leopold refers to the food cycles present within the land pyramid as growing and expanding as it does, it does not explain the complexity of food systems. The argument is perhaps just poorly worded, modern science does not call these food systems “food chains” as Leopold refers to them, however as food webs. Whichever species is at the very top of the pyramid still contributes to the food systems of species below them. As animals decompose in the natural environment, they provide nutrients to countless species that the land pyramid would claim is below that animal. It almost seems as if Leopold is talking about a predatory dominance over its prey as claiming status in the land pyramid.
      However Leopold claims that man shares a middle layer with bears, raccoons, and squirrels for example, as these species eat both meat and vegetables (215). It is clear that Leopold’s land pyramid is solely based on what a species eats to claim its layer in the pyramid, yet humans’ position seems to be a very subjective one. We view modern values as pertaining to human life, to our ideas, our langue and our interactions with one another, all of which have inherent value. We are sentient of our place in nature, and our ideas state that all things in nature (except humans) are governed solely by mechanical laws and brute forces. We exempt ourselves from being a part of nature as we believe we can own it and control it. Humans should be removed from the land pyramid as they are we truthfully act on our own accord. Modern technology has given us the ability to create genetically engineered crops. We are choosing to eat not from the base of the pyramid, but from science. As we continue to expand our technologies in this sense we continue to further ourselves from the land pyramid. We also control the natural food that we do eat, consuming as specialty food species that naturally would be at the top of the pyramid or towards the bottom. Our world view; our social sciences, natural sciences, history, religion, and economic principals do not rely on our position in the land pyramid. It is fairly clear that as a developed species we disregard the rest of our land.
      Leopold suggests that the land pyramid is our guide to the economical relations to the land in the sense of a biotic mechanism (214). This claim would work even better in the sense of the human species’ separate land pyramid. We view the land pyramid as a guide to the economical associations of the land in terms of a biotic mechanism. Species lower on the pyramid are more abundant, and to us, less important, less rare, and less economically valuable. Naturally species that are at the top of the pyramid we view as special and worth more. This is our idea of supply and demand, which we typically view in terms of goods and services, in nature. The land pyramid has become our way to judge economic value of nature, as modern values are established to satisfy human preferences and desires. While this is undoubtedly a poor viewpoint it seems to be our current, albeit unfortunate, stance regarding nature.
      Leopold claims that we can only be ethical in something that we can see, feel, understand, love or otherwise have faith in (214). This claim is truly essential in understanding the values and principles of our relationship to nature. To the most basic point, if we do not love the land, we cannot be ethical in the way respect nature. The land pyramid is Leopold’s example of explaining how species have worked interdependently to organize ourselves. While Leopold may not have every detail exact, his driving concepts our fellowship with the land stands out. Moreover, Leopold has broken down walls with his words, illuminated to generations the significance of our land ethic.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UP, 1981. Print.