Summary of “Thinking Like a Mountain” Aldo Leopold’s essay, “Thinking Like a Mountain” shines light on a prominent issue amongst the ecosystem concerning the importance of a single organism. Leopold attempts to help the reader understand the importance of all animals in the ecosystem by allowing a wolf, deer, and a mountain to represent the ecosystem and how changes amongst them cause adverse effects on each other. Leopold recounts of the killing of a wolf and seeing a "fierce green fire" die in its eyes, this became a transformational moment in his life causing him to rethink the beliefs he had grown up with. By connecting the wolf’s death to the health of the mountain he was inspired to promote the idea that all predators matter to the ecosystem. He believed then that all native organisms are critical to the health of the land, if any change occurs in one part of the circuit, many parts will have to adjust to it and if something is removed the consequence can be detrimental. The essay highlights the idea that all living things on earth have a purpose and that everything is interdependent of each other. Every organism has a role to play in the ecosystem and each one has it effects on others. To explain this idea leopard begins by describing the howl of the wolf: “A deep chesty bawl echoes from rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the mountain, and fades into the far blackness of the night. It is an outburst of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt for all the adversities of the world. Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call.” Leopold is explaining how the howl of the wolf means different things to different organisms in the ecosystem. The howl is not simply just a call of the wolf, it generates d... ... middle of paper ... ... that during that time was not very prominent. He took steps to learn about it so that he could help other people understand. In conclusion Leopold explains the importance of the wolf and its effects on others. In doing this it is clear that each part of the ecosystem plays an important role and the effects that each single organism have on one another are grand. Leopold personifies the mountain so that people can think objectively about the environment and act in a way that doesn’t do harm to it. Humans have become alienated from the rest of nature and Leopold want everybody to understand that we are all part of a big interconnected system. Leopold does not want us parallel his youthful actions by continuing to be ignorant towards the environment and in writing this essay he is able to help educate people. Works Cited http://www.eco-action.org/dt/thinking.html
These two sides of the issue bring about a major controversy in America today. Should the Pacific Northwest’s old growth forests and the welfare of the Northern Spotted Owl be sacrificed for America’s economy, and the jobs of the people in the logging industry? Which should be placed at a higher value, the forests in the Pacific Northwest and the northern spotted owl, or the American economy and the jobs and welfare of thousands and thousands of people?
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.
Instead of allowing a peaceful compromise between how humans takes on nature there seems to be a lot more indecisive decisions on how humans might think of nature and how vital it is to us and that it's another substance on the earth we live in that must be respected. The actions in this essay this is what had created Johnson's idea on this text giving us the image of what happens to some of these creature without remorse and it is a sad idea to process for some as for others it's a fun process to think about. When she first sees the fox it's described almost as a hero of some sort as it runs with a chip on it's shoulders but until she gets the closer looks she explains the fox saying “Her eyes were cold and amber…there were ticks in her ears and one ear was bitten and ragged on the edges” (72), what once was looked at with high standards is not looked at with confusion and sorrow. After seeing the chilling image of the fox we start to feel like if only there were something that could be done to help ant part of nature from being beaten up. In the end Johnson explains how a while after seeing the fox she comes to understand that man had become the conqueror of the that area by saying “And that winter a hunter trapped and killed all the foxes of these woods and fields for miles around” (72), not something that should be bragged upon by others. What would you yourself think of this situation she was in finding out of a man who hunted all the foxes in that area and now to not be seen
Leopold would most likely approve of the work being done to preserve Gorongosa National Park and would agree with Wilson in that nature is our home and we should treat it as such, but Leopold, unlike Wilson, argues that it is our moral obligation, and not just our pleasure, to respect nature. Additionally, Wilson seems to focus specifically on the plants and animals that make up an ecosystem, but Leopold extends his focus to non-living components such as soil and water because they are instrumental in maintaining the integrity of land communities. Leopold might urge Wilson to make sure that he is not simply educating people at Gorongosa, but really help them genuinely understand land ethics. This way, humans can evolve a sense of praise and approval for preserving the integrity and beauty of the biotic community (262), and social disapproval for doing the exact
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.
In his journal, Thoreau muses upon twenty years of changes in New England’s land and beasts. He lists the differences in plants and animals, comparing them to past accounts and descriptions. He questions if the growing human presence has resulted in “a maimed and imperfect nature.” Cronon believes that this is an important question to consider. He points out that although changes do happen in nature, it is not so easy to determine how they changed. He is also not sure if Thoreau’s description of “a maimed and imperfect nature” is the correct way to refer to ecology, since it is by its essence, a fluid system of changes and reactions. Cronon does not deny the impact of
the idea of the wild and its importance and necessity of human interaction with the wild.
While the man is thinking about the wolf and the impact it had on its surroundings, he knows that many people would be afraid of the it. Realizing that something can be both “terrible and of great beauty,” the man's sense of awe is heightened. While laying under the moonlight, the man thinks about the wolf both figuratively and literally running through the dew on the grass and how there would be a “rich matrix of creatures [that had] passed in the night before her.” Figuratively, this represents the wolf running into heaven. However, the man imagining the wolf literally running and the beauty of her free movements across the “grassy swale” creates a sense of awe that he has for the wolf. A wolf running towards someone would be terrifying, but a wolf running with freedom is magnificently beautiful. After imagining this, the man knows that even though wolves can be terrifying, “the world cannot lose” their sense of beauty and
McCarthy uses detailed descriptions, creates a somber mood through religious references, and elucidates upon the main character’s perspective to convey the impact of the experience on the protagonist. His actions reveal significant care and respect for the animal, as it seems difficult for the protagonist to cope with the loss of such a great creature. McCarthy portrays the wolf through an uncommon perspective; a frightful and beastly creature is transformed into a magnificent and bold animal. The wolf is pictured as an animal destined for honor and high admiration through its spiritual characteristics. Emphasis on the wolf’s positive qualities reveals human beings’ tendency to ignore the favorable characteristics of an individual or animal. Human beings commonly disregard the inner beauty all creatures possess.
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life; and see if I could learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived”.Here in this essay, it is divided into two parts exploring the two various extracts from Emerson and Thoreau. Both these textsexchange individual views on the relationship between Man and Naturebut I would like to focus more on the similarities than the differences of this relationship.
Though best known as a literary figure, Henry Thoreau showed a lasting interest in science. He read widely in the scientific literature of his day and published one the first scholarly discussions on forest succession. In fact, some historians rate Thoreau as one of the founders of the modern science of ecology. At the same time, Thoreau often lamented science’s tendency to kill poetry. Scientific writings coupled with his own careful observations often revealed life to him, but in other ways rendered nature lifeless. Modern-day Thoreauvians are also aware that science has largely become a tool for control and increased consumption, rather than for the appreciation and protection of wild nature. This paper explores some of Thoreau’s reflections on science and "system," and presents his view of the proper role of science in our lives. As will become clear, Thoreau’s worries are occasioned by his own scientific endeavors. His responses to science’s insufficiencies are reformist, suggesting ways to improve and supplement science rather than discard it.
A trophy hunt’s main goal is to bag the largest animal in attempt to signify a successful killing, a head mounted on the wall. In Aldo Leopold’s “Thinking Like a Mountain,” he details the murder of a wolf for sport by a group of hunters. Leopold approaches the dying wolf and sees the life leave its eyes, the green fire fading away. This is Leopold’s epiphany, as he now sees the world from the mountain’s perspective, and not through the eyes of the trophy hunters. A mountain sees the life of every animal as equally important, but the senselessness of killing for pure sport is not reflective on an ideal ecosystem (Leopold, TLAM). In my experience, I became the mountain. I sat ten feet high and was the watch tower guard. I had no bias towards the deer, but I appreciated their peacefulness and their place in the scene before
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.
While reading “Thinking like a Mountain” by Aldo Leopold, published in 1986, and “Landscape Use and Movements of Wolves in Relation To Livestock in a Wildland-Agriculture Matrix” by Chavez and Gese which was a piece from The Journal of Wildlife Management, published in 2006, I have become interested in investigating the question of how wolves interact with livestock. In Leopold’s article he explains how humans are taking away the role of wolves. He explains how when humans hunt animals, they are taking away the wolves role within the environment. His whole article is a personification because he gives the mountain feelings, which we know they do not have feelings. Leopold wants the audience to think and feel how the environment does. In his article he also explains how the wolves interact with the cattle. I am researching how wolves affect the livestock on farms. My second article, by Chavez and Gese, is about expanding the wolf range in Minnesota. Chavez and Gese’s