To understand Leopold’s Land Ethic, we have to understand that Leopold very much saw nature as being an interconnected community made up of interconnected communities. These communities—whether we name them ecological wholes, biomes, biospheres, ecosystems—are made up of both abiotic (e.g. soil, water) and biotic (e.g. plants, animals) elements. These individual members of the natural community are interdependent. We humans are members of the natural community; the Land Ethic is very much non-anthropocentric. Our actions impact other individual members and the community as a whole; vice versa, the actions of other members affect us, and the community as a whole can affect us. From “The Land Ethic” (Leopold, 1949, p. 204):
“All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.”
Leopold outlined his idea of interconnectedness in nature in the land pyramid (pictured below). This is a concept that may look familiar to us, perhaps with the exception of the abiotic component. The Land Ethic as proposed by Leopold asks us to take into account the non-living members of the natural community as part of the community. Think about it: if the soil is disturbed or contaminated, then would that not affect the living organisms within it? What about the trees? What about landslides and soil erosion and their resulting effects on agriculture and therefore us?
An illustration of Leopold’s “land pyramid”
So far, this explains the ecological part of the Land Ethic. We can better understand the Land Ethic by seeing the conservation movement as it was then through Leopold’s eyes. Previous land ethics existed before Leopold wrote his essay, and his Land Ethic was a reaction against what can be thought of as an economic land ethic. Leopold (1966, pp. 262–263) argued against viewing nature from this perspective (bold emphasis mine):
[…] quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.
It of course goes without saying that economic feasibility limits the tether of what can or cannot be done for land. It always has and it always will. The fallacy the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we now need to cast off, is the belief that economics determines all land-use.
What Leopold is arguing against are the implications of an anthropocentric economic land ethic. Since most individuals in an ecosystem do not have economic or monetary value to us humans, it is implied that these individuals can be eliminated from the natural community. For example, wolves that prey on deer or cattle are commonly viewed as nuisances because they interfere with our agricultural and economic system. Therefore, we hunt them, despite the fact that they are merely surviving, existing, living. This idea of eliminating what humans deem as unnecessary is also despite the fact that individual members do add value to the overall benefit of the community that are not monetary in nature. For example, trees and green plants, through the process of photosynthesis, release oxygen into the air, a fundamental requirement for humans to live. Predators help keep prey in check so as to maintain a healthy population. It is difficult, almost impossible, to quantify these services in terms of economic value. From the Foreword to A Sand County Almanac, Leopold (1966, p. xviii) writes:
“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
The crux of Leopold’s Land Ethic is that we need to apply ethical regard to the land. We need to recognize that instrumental value, particularly value to us humans, is not the sole important factor for our decisions about and attitudes towards nature. We need to take into account the intrinsic value of nature and its members. We need to practise humility, and understand that we are part of the interconnected community of natural beings, that we and our needs are not more important than the needs of other individuals or the community in general. We need to respect our place in the natural world and take responsibility for our actions, because they impact more than just our immediate (human) neighbors.