A Practical Land Ethic: Radical Style

Leah Capezio



    According to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, “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” (Leopold, 1995: 240).  The land ethic embraces conservation as a state of harmony between humans and the land.  It maintains that all species should be valued based on their biotic right to life.  The radical environmental movement comes closer to implementing this ethic because it recognizes nature’s inherent value, and utilizes direct action that achieves results before the integrity of the ecosystem can be undermined.  Mainstream groups are flawed in implementing the land ethic because they focus on self-interest and use education and compromise as methods of environmental action.
    In the environmental movement, both radical and mainstream groups have essential roles.  Mainstream groups are practical and employ conservation methods such as education, legislation, lobbying, litigation, and land purchase.  Radical groups use methods of direct action such as public hearings, picketing, street theater, tree sitting, and property destruction (Class Notes: 10-14-03).  Mainstream groups achieve the preservation of large plots of land, while radical groups achieve immediate local results, such as preventing a dozen trees from being cut down.  Radical groups also function to make mainstream groups appear less extreme, so they may accomplish tasks with less resistance.
Within these distinct roles, there are opportunities for both groups to implement Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, but radical environmental groups apply the ethic more thoroughly.  Environmental radicals believe in preserving land for the sake of nature itself; their beliefs are ecocentric.  On the other hand, mainstream groups have historically preserved land for people to use and enjoy, which is an anthropocentric practice.  The land ethic welcomes the ecocentric view because people who think ecocentrically are thinking about parts of the ecosystem other than themselves.  People who think anthropocentrically will never achieve the land ethic because they do not get beyond thinking of themselves.
Evidence that mainstream groups work with self-interest in mind occurs throughout history.  In the late 1800’s, the view of nature as a commodity (nature made for man) dominated professional circles and government bureaus.  In the Sierra Club Bulletin, Joseph Le Conte wrote, “It is true that trees are for human use, but there are aesthetic uses as well as commercial uses – uses for the spiritual wealth of all, as well as for the material wealth of some” (Fox, 1985: 115).  Le Conte admitted that there was more than one use for trees, but each use he named – commercial, spiritual, and aesthetic – involved services that trees provide for humans.
    As mainstream environmental groups became more active in the 1950’s and made aggressive efforts to conserve and preserve resources, they continued to do so anthropocentrically.  Olaus Murie, the director of the Audubon Society in the 1950’s, said, “I think we should go beyond proving the rights of animals to live in utilitarian terms.  Why don’t we just admit we like having them around?  Isn’t that answer enough?”  While this statement reflects an improvement from thinking in solely economic terms, that answer is not enough to implement the land ethic.  It still does not recognize the ethical reason to preserve animals (and other parts of ecosystems): for the health and stability of the biotic community.
    The methods for achieving preservation differ between radical and mainstream groups.  Leopold said that “conservation education,” which is a main practice for mainstream organizations, involves obeying the law, voting right, joining a few organizations, and practicing what is profitable on one’s own land, while letting the government do the rest (Leopold, 1995: 223).  He also asserted that this formula does not accomplish anything worthwhile and only encourages enlightened self-interest.  True conservation calls for sacrifice, defines right and wrong, and implies a change in our current values.
Contrary to “conservation education,” radicals are willing to break the law because they believe in the right to defend the earth as their home by whatever means necessary (Abbey, 1988: 31).  It is also important to act immediately, instead of waiting for legislation to be passed and relying on education to affect people and influence them to act.          This direct action technique works because people pay attention when there is confrontation (Scarce, 1990: NP).
Radicals want to do more than just join organizations and vote in the right way.  They practice eco-defense, which means fighting back when their homes face the threat of damage.  They also feel that it is important to protect entire ecosystems, instead of preserving only their own land.  Paul Watson, a leading activist in Greenpeace, said, “The life of a dolphin [is] equal in value to the life of a human” (Watson, 1995: 341).  This feeling is shared by radical environmentalists and is the epitome of the land ethic.  It breeds harmony between human and animal communities and allows interrelationships to develop.  This is the feeling that directs radical action.
    Conversely, mainstream organizations rely heavily on “conservation education.”  As the largest conservation organization in the mid 1900’s, the National Wildlife Federation dispensed information, coordinated the activities of its members, and sold various items related to wildlife (Fox, 1985: 262).  It did not take charge of legislative campaigns, but served as support if other organizations did so.  These simple, passive education methods do not accomplish enough in the way of preserving ecosystems.
    Later on, in the 1950’s, Aldo Leopold’s Sand County Almanac, which is the source of his land ethic, provoked thoughtful ecological ideas.  The Audubon Society began to emphasize habitats and interrelationships, instead thinking of ecosystem components separately (Fox, 1985: 263).  This change in philosophy began a transition toward embracing the land ethic, which calls for enlarging the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively, the land (Leopold, 1995: 219).  However, the methods that the society used to enhance the interrelationships included tours, lectures, and informational camp sessions.  These are all methods of passive education, which has its place in conservation, but is not enough.  Localized educational efforts reach people who are already interested in conservation, but not those who actually need to learn.
    In addition to education, mainstream groups believe that compromise is an acceptable tactic.  Unfortunately, compromise leads to lost ecosystems that can never be recovered once they are developed.  Radical environmentalists do not believe that compromise is an adequate tactic in environmental protection.  David Brower, the Sierra Club’s first executive director, believes that compromise will always fail because it involves sacrificing huge amounts of wilderness, and new areas can never be created (Scarce, 1990: NP).  Leopold would agree that compromise does not preserve the stability of ecosystems.
    When applying the land ethic to the radical environmental movement, some weaknesses emerge.  Radical activities, such as starting fires to oppose new development, can trigger opposition, which can be counterproductive because the land ethic includes harmony within human relationships.  If radical environmentalists develop enemies, the beauty and stability of the human community is not being preserved.
    Similarly, while radical activities make a statement, they sometimes also destroy land and property, which endangers the stability of the community.  Radicals may argue that any destruction they cause is better than leaving buildings standing, which would promote further development.  This issue is debatable.  Another weakness of radical groups is that some of their activities, such as spiking trees, can backfire.  Although loggers know that they cannot sell trees that have been spiked, they may cut the trees down anyway and leave them on the forest floor to prove a point.  In this case, instead of the tree being saved or at least being used for construction, it is wasted.
    Despite these weaknesses, radical environmentalists come closer to implementing Aldo Leopold’s land ethic.  Radical groups love the land because it is their home, and they feel the need to protect it, though their tactics can be extreme.  The practical activities of the mainstream groups balance out the direct action of the radicals.  Clearly, each movement has its place in implementing the land ethic, and each can learn from and complement the other.  Aldo Leopold could not conceive of an ethical relation to land that exists without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value (Leopold, 1995: 239).  Mainstream and radical environmentalists both have a love and respect for the land, but they feel and express it in different ways.

References

Abbey, Edward. 1988. One Life at a Time, Please. New York: Henry Holt.

Fox, Stephen. 1985. The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Leopold, Aldo. 1995. "The Land Ethic." Pages 147-156 in James P. Sterba, editor, Earth Ethics: Environmental Ethics, Animal Rights, and Practical Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scarce, Rik. 1990. Eco-Warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement. Chicago: Noble Press.

Watson, Paul. 1995. "Tora! Tora! Tora!" Pages 341-346 in James P. Sterba, editor, Earth Ethics: Environmental Ethics, Animal Rights, and Practical Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.