The Land Ethic
1. Define the following terms/ Ideas based on your review of Leopold's discussion of "the land ethic,"
Conservation
I think that in this chapter Leopold is showing the reader how the different people see the land and the things in and around that land. He also tells us that even the conservation commission feels impelled to kill animals and birds to help the production of a lesser species.
I think that Leopold is trying to say that in conservation someone will always loose out. For example man pollutes a river with trout in it, the trout die and there is a decline in trout population so the conservation commission feels to help trout populations get back to normal they will kill herons. This is better for the fisherman but not for the ornithologist. So it would appear, in short, that the rudimentary grades of outdoor recreation consume their resource-base: the higher grades, at least to a degree, create their own satisfactions with little or no attrition of land or life. It is the expansion of transport without a corresponding growth of perception that threatens us with qualitative bankruptcy of the recreational process.
The land pyramid
By the land pyramid I think that Leopold is using this as some equation for man and for land. I also think that this is a equation for many other things, for example Leopold talks about recent discovery's in mineral and vitamin nutrition reveal unsuspected dependencies in the up-circuit: incredibly minute quantity's of certain substances determine the value of soils to plants, of plants to animals. I think that this is saying that if you leave the land and the plants to themselves that they will look-after and provide for each other.
Ecology
Wilderness
I think that he is trying to say that wilderness is something to be cherished and loved, because it gives definition and meaning to his life. His whole life was spent looking after and trying to preserve the wilderness. This is a plea for the preservation. I think that Leopold believes one day a lot of what we have today and he want it to be preserved so that in the future people have the chance to see there cultural inheritance like our ancestors let us see by preserving things.
Although Leopold’s love of great expanses of wilderness is readily apparent, his book does not cry out in defense of particular tracts of land about to go under the axe or plow, but rather deals with the minutiae, the details, of often unnoticed plants and animals, all the little things that, in our ignorance, we have left out of our managed acreages but which must be present to add up to balanced ecosystems and a sense of quality and wholeness in the landscape.
Cronon, William “The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature” ed., Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995, 69-90
In my generation, I am able to catch what is relatively the tail end of this slow extinction. And to be quite honest, I had not devoted a moment of thought to this phenomenon until I read Leopold’s passages. In fact, I am always the first one to compliment a new highway project that saves me five minutes of driving or even a tidy farmstead as I pass. Now, more than ever, my thoughts are in limbo. It was just last week when my dad pointed out an area off the highway that displayed miles of slowly rolling cornfields. His reaction was to the beauty of the countryside. Mine was to question his. I found myself thinking about all of the hard work that created that beauty, and then how much more beautiful it was fifty, a hundred, or even two centuries ago. Only the mind’s eye can create this beauty now, and that is exactly why Leopold’s concerns are validated.
The wild is a place to push yourself to the limit and take a look at who you truly are inside. “Wilderness areas have value as symbols of unselfishness” (Nash). Roderick Nash’s philosophy states that the wilderness gives people an opportunity to learn humility but they fight this because they do not have a true desire to be humble. Human-kind wants to give out the illusion that they are nature lovers when in reality, they are far from it. “When we go to designated wilderness we are, as the 1964 act says, "visitors" in someone else's home” (Nash). People do not like what they cannot control and nature is uncontrollable. Ecocentrism, the belief that nature is the most important element of life, is not widely accepted. The novel Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer depicts a young boy who goes on an exploration to teach himself the true concept of humility. Chris McCandless, the protagonist, does not place confidence in the universal ideology that human beings are the most significant species on the planet, anthropocentrism.
the idea of the wild and its importance and necessity of human interaction with the wild.
At one point in our lives as human beings we began to draw mental lines between ourselves and nature. This is something that has gradually been increasing throughout their years. Most people do not seem to notice all of these constant changes simply because we are used to the type of world we live in now. I believe that in order for somebody to understand what's happening these negative changes need to affect us as individuals. For example, many people don't realize cutting down trees to build businesses will eventually cause the world to be unsustainable. Nature is something very necessary. "Wilderness" in old English was something that had its own will, just like you mentioned in paragraph three. The Wild is a place where wild undomesticated animals should be allowed to roam
One strength of his article is that it can easily elicit an emotional response from the more sympathetic readers and outdoor enthusiasts. Duane appeals to pathos when first setting the scene of a day in the wilderness. He describes what it would be like if one had the “good fortune” to spot a Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in the wild. He writes, “You unwrap a chocolate bar amid breathtaking views . . . the sight fills you with awe and also with gratitude for the national parks, forests, and yes, environmental regulations that keep the American dream of wilderness alive” (Duane 1). For the audience that connects to this emotional appeal, this instantly draws them in to the article and can arouse feelings of amazement and wonder toward the sight described. It can likewise leave readers wondering whether or not this scene is truly so perfect. This statement can also appear too dramatic for those less passionate. When Duane writes, “The sight fills you with . . . gratitude for the . . . yes, environmental regulations that keep the American dream of wilderness alive,” it seems almost untrue, as most people do not think twice about the environmental regulations that keep animals in their
...ves for a steady-state equilibrium where man and the land can exist in harmony. Abbey pleads for others to realize that if they do not fight for their wilderness now, mad machines will devour all the untamed, beautiful places and steal the souls of humans in the process.
One of Aldo Leopolds main points in his essay was that we as humans can not replace, rebuild nature. So before it goes to far, and get's to destroyed we must restore it. As people though we can only do so much and we can't restore it with foreign plants, but only the natural plants that originated there. So if we destroy an area's ecosystem then we can never restore, and replenish it to its original state and land consistency. In his essay Leopold said that "we have radically modified the biotic system because we had to. Food chains now begin with corn, and alfalfa instead of oaks and bluestem, flows through cows, hogs, and poultry instead of into elk, deer, and grouse." Therefore we can never restore damage done but only reroute it.
He puts emphasis on the scarceness of refuges like the Arctic Refuge and also implies that if this refuge is lost, America may forever lose the national heritage that was once the pride of her. He states that "there are few places on earth as wild and free as the Arctic Refuge," to validate that preserves like this are rare and declining. He also states that "it is a symbol of our national heritage, a remnant of frontier America that our first settlers once called wilderness. Little of that precious wilderness remains," to give a historical meaning to the staying intact of the
Muir’s wilderness is rooted in the idea of an aesthetically pleasing natural scape given they fit into certain criteria such as, “ none of Nature’s landscape’s are ugly so long as they are wild” (Muir). The attachment of this emphasis on an aesthetically pleasing landscape was partial truth, which drove people out the national parks. While these places where indeed wild and beautiful, Muir sold the masses on this idea of all nature being pristine and pure, when in reality that was not the
From the lone hiker on the Appalachian Trail to the environmental lobby groups in Washington D.C., nature evokes strong feelings in each and every one of us. We often struggle with and are ultimately shaped by our relationship with nature. The relationship we forge with nature reflects our fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. The works of timeless authors, including Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard, are centered around their relationship to nature.
Leopold’s view is a glorified dream at best. While most people do acknowledge the need for some type of ecological consciousness, the one illustrated by Leopold is far from probable. Today’s society is overrun with the desire for speed and convenience, and driven by competition. Asking the busy world to stop, step backward, and work the concerns for such things as soil, rocks, or oak trees into its contracts and agreements is a foolish notion. It has come to be that to most individuals, the sight of a city skyline that is bustling with business and life is just as pristine as the sight of a natural forest.
Garrett Hardin developed the concept of the Tragedy of the Commons. The basic concept is a giant pasture that is for everyone to have a piece of land and for the herdsman to have as many cattle a possible to sustain the land. This land should be able to maintain itself for quite a long time because of cattle dying as well as the population staying relatively stable. But at some point the population will begin growing and the herdsman will want to maximize their profits by having more cattle, which in return the land cannot sustain. The herdsman receives all the profit from adding one more animal to the pasture so the herdsman will eventually begin adding more cattle, but the overgrazing caused by that added animal will destroy the land making it uninhabitable for everyone. Thus you have the tragedy of the commons. For all the herdsman on the common, it is the only rational decision to make, adding another animal. This is the tragedy. Each man is compelled to add an infinite number of cattle to increase his profits, but in a world with limited resources it is impossible to continually grow. When resources are held "in common" with many people having access and ownership to it, then a rational person will increase their exploitation of it because the individual is receiving all the benefit, while everyone is sharing the costs.
My first article was “Thinking Like a Mountain”, and this article wants the reader to think about how humans are affecting the environment and the wolf population. This article begins with a wolf bawling. Leopold begins his essay this way because it grabs the reader’s attention. This makes the reader want to figure out who or what is bawling and why. At the beginning of this article, it is told in nature’s point of view. As the article continues, the viewpoint changes to his own and he explains his personal view of a young boy hunting deer. He explains how the wolves are becoming endangered because humans are shooting the wolves because they are killing their livestock. Leopold also writes about the cattle farms. He explains how the cowman are taking over the jobs of the wolves by “trimming the herd to fit the range (141).” When Leopold says, “He has not learned to think like a mountain