Leopold Land Pyramid

Roderick Frazier Nash’s book, Wilderness and the American Mind, compiled contemporary debates about wilderness by outlining the changing positions concerning wilderness throughout history. In chapter 11, “Aldo Leopold: Prophet,” Nash discuses Aldo Leopold’s house metaphor. Here, Leopold refers to six vacant lots and what it would mean to build houses on all six lots. He describes how the first few houses might make sense; however once you build upon all six lots you no longer remember the meaning of the homes. He argues that they somehow the sixth house would become “stupidity.” Conversely, I disagree with this theory. I feel each house, so to speak, is built differently and suits different needs and wants. Just as in the wilderness,

These dilemmas brought up in Part II make the Round River essays, inserted as the modern edition’s Part III, titled "A Taste for Country," particularly apt, because this is the section of the book that deals primarily with philosophies. It is here that Leopold states that "poor land may be rich country, and vice versa". It is here that Leopold introduces the concept, radical then but widely accepted now, that the planet itself is a living organism and, through the natural cycles of earth, wind, fire and water, continually replenishes its own means of remaining alive. The human role in this "Round River" ecosystem is prominent, of course, and for thousands of years indigenous people depended directly on the bounty of this natural system to supply their needs of food and fiber. Although modern civilization has been forced by its increasing population to create artificial cycles, replacing elk and deer and grouse with beef and hogs and poultry, and replacing the oaks and bluestem grasses which fed the wild meat with corn and alfalfa.

Leopold expresses, “a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopesided,” (p. 251). The self-interest economists who are only interested in the profit of which they gain from the land cannot spread the importance of the respect for the community. The people who share a knowledge and passion for the environment will educate those who are unaware. As well as being educated on the land, it is essential for humanity to understand that we are not users of what Earth has to offer us, but associates,

If everyone thought this way our wildlife, animals, nature, and environment would be in better the way you would want them to be treated. This saying is simply stating to people love to have nice things and when we get them we like to keep it that way. So in relation to Leopold we have a nice beautiful environment in which we should keep it that way. Think of our environment as a condition than what it is now. Aldo Leopold was right when he said “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and the beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”(Sand CountyAlmanac, pg. 224-225). It is important for people to reach and follow the values of Leopold explaining that beauty is not just scenery, stability does not mean unchanging for change is essential to nature and the natural world and integrity is wholeness, having all the parts. These three simple values will change our perspective of the

John Muir is arguably the most influential conservationist in American history. He was an active member in the preservation of the American wilderness from the late 1800’s until he passed in 1914. Muir is often referred to as the “Father of the National Parks” because of his efforts in the establishment of several National Parks. One of the biggest flaws of American history textbooks in need of change is the fact that they do not include the conservationists who have preserved the environment so today the same beauty can be see the way that they saw it. John Muir was involved in many American conservation efforts including the co-founding of Yosemite National Park, founding of the Sierra Club, and his overall career as a

What exactly is land ethics? According to Leopold, “Land ethics expands the boundaries of ethics by including soils, waters, plants, and animals,” (Leopold, page 239). However, a land ethic cannot prevent the alteration, management, and the use of the resources stated above. Basically, Leopold states that land ethics change the role that we humans play from that of a land-conqueror to that of a citizen and member. In class, we learned that land ethics imply respect for the surrounding community. We as humans are important, and thus, have more responsibility to protect the environment.

To understand where the motivation and passion to protect the environment was developed, one looks to the rapid deforestation of East Coast old-growth forests at the turn of the century. “As Gifford Pinchot expressed it, ‘The American Colossus was fiercely at work turning natural resources into money.’ ‘A

People, in general, care more about the environment as it comes to their careers. Abbey and Leopold have careers which has involved them in their specific

Leopold is calling for a philosophical shift rather than a change in our actions. In the beginning of the essay, Leopold references The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule. The pair of ethical viewpoints guides our everyday relationships in society. The Ten Commandments is a documentation of ten moral rules that are set in stone (pun intended.) The Golden Rule is a single principle of mutuality: treat others how you want to be treated. While one approach is only to be obeyed, the other depends on deep self-reflection. To truly know how to treat someone, we must think about consequences and respect one another. The land ethic is not a list of rules, which should be taken for what it is, but an attitude that can change on a daily basis. Leopold seeks to reconstruct humanity’s ethical knowledge to its core. He observes the way humans interact compassionately, and is determined to explain why it is important to extend this compassion to the environment. “It is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation to the land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land and a high regard for its value” (Leopold

Within Aldo Leopold’s Thinking Like a Mountain and Annie Dillard’s Living Like a Weasel there is a communal theme, which incorporates the conflict between people and nature. Throughout Dillard’s piece, she uses comparisons between the life of humans and the life of a wild weasel while applying the theme of freedom of choice. After an unexpected encounter with a weasel, Dillard concludes that humans can learn from the wild freedom of weasel. She states, “...I might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive” (Dillard 8). In Aldo Leopold’s writing, his overall motive is to communicate to the reader that we humans must not destroy the wilderness, as

Of our 45 presidents, Theodore Roosevelt is not one that will be easily forgotten. During his time, his accomplishments wrought a change in the United States, and are still impacting us today, even long after his death. Among his many notable feats, many consider his conservation efforts specifically to be his legacy. He had a love and passion for nature, and he even became a permanent fixture of nature when his face was carved into a wall of rock, as one of the four presidents of Mount Rushmore. During the 1900s, “conservation” was not a word often thrown around in conversation. Today however, conflicts such as limited resources, conservation, climate change, and environment are words that have been on everyone’s lips at one point or

Aldo Leopold laid the foundation for environmental awareness decades ahead of a “ecological conscience” (257). There have many pleas to reconnect humanity with nature since the release of Leopold’s cherished book. Intuition and reason tell us that living in harmony with our world is more than idealistic—the future of our planet depends on it. The desire for harmony is not new one. Humans have long time sought to live in peace. It is genuine feelings of love and

“The Land Ethic” written by Aldo Leopold was critiqued by J. Baird Callicott. “The Land Ethic” in short explained the idea that humans are not superior to animals or species on earth, but humans should live on earth as simple members. (Leopold, 2013) Callicott found three things that lead to the confusion, contempt, and contempt of Leopold’s writings.

Aldo Leopold is another American environmentalist who was dominant in the development of modern environmental ethics. Aldo was more for holistic ethics regarding land. According to him, “An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct.” He describes in his article that politics and economics are advanced symbioses in which free-for-all competition has been replaced by co-operative mechanism with an ethical content.” He thought that ethics direct individuals to cooperate with each other for the mutual benefit of all. Also he believes that community should be

Another adjustment to the microscope, and we can examine Leopold's biocentric opinion of how environmental ethics should be governed. His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology. Devall and Sessions argue that "the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes." (503)