Society for Conservation Biology

Whither Conservation Ethics?

Author(s): J. Baird Callicott
Source: Conservation Biology, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Mar., 1990), pp. 15-20
Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Society for Conservation Biology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2385958
Accessed: 31/07/2010 12:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Society for Conservation Biology are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Conservation Biology.

http://www.jstor.org

Essay

Ethics?
Conservation
Whither
J.BAIRD CALLICOTT
Departmentof Philosophy
of Wisconsin-SP
University
StevensPoint,WI 54481, U.S.A.

Abstract:A review of the moral foundations of American

conservationprovides a historicalperspectiveforformulatcenturyconservationethic.Building on the
inga twenty-first
workofR W Emersonand H. D. Thoreau,JohnMuirformuPreservationEthicthatpitlated a Romantic-Transcendental
tedtheallegedlyhigheraestheticand spirituialuses of nature
against consumptiveand extractivematerial uses. Gifford
Pinchotformulateda morepedestrian and egalitarian Resource ConservationEthic consistentwith utilitarian and
democratic ideals. Muir also adumbrated a more radical
preservationethic rhetoricallycast in
nonanthropocentric
Biblical terms.Aldo Leopold articulateda similarlynonanenvironmentalethicin evolutionaryand ecothropocentric
logical terms.A reviewofLeopold's largeliteraryestate,however, reveals that he continued to advocate active
managementfor a mutuallybeneficialhuman-naturesymbiosis, in addition to thepassive preservationof "wilderness." As the human population grows and more nations
develop,thebesthopefor conservationbiologylies in a generalization of Leopold's ideal of ecosystemswhich are at
once economicallyproductiveand ecologicallyhealthy.The
principal intellectualchallenge raised by such an ideal for
conservationbiology is the developmentof criteriaof ecoin an inherently
dynamic,evolvlogical healthand integrity
ing and human-saturatedbiota

Resumen: Una revisi6nde las bases morales de la conservaci6n en los Estados Unidos de NorteAmerica nos proporciona una perspectiva hist6ricapara formular una etica
conservacionistapara el siglo 21. John Muir formul6 una
basada
"Etica de la Preservaci6nRomdntico-Trascendental"
en las obras de R. W Emerson y H. D. Thoreau que contraponia el supuesto valor esteticoy espiritual de la naturaleza y su utilidad para el consumo y uso material extraPinchotformul6una "Etica de la Conservaci6n
tivo.Gifford
del Recurso" mas pedestree igualitaria, consistentecon los
ideales utilitariosydemocraticos.Muir tambienbosqueyaba
una 'ticapreservacionistamas radicaly no antropocentrica,
ret6ricamentemoldeada en terminosbiblicos.Aldo Leopold
articul6 una etica ambiental no antropocentricaen terminos evolutivosy ecol6gicos. Una revisi6ndel amplio caudal
literariode Leopold, sin embargo,revela que 6l continuaba
abogando el manefoactivo de los recursoshacia una simbiosis hombre-naturalezamutuamentebeneficiosa,ademas
de la preservaci6npasiva de la naturaleza silvestre.En la
medida en que la poblaci6n humana aumenta, y ma's naciones se desarrollan,la esperanza optimapara la "biologia
de la conservaci6n,"esta en la generalizacion del ideal de
"ecosistemas"de Leopold, los cuales son, a su vez, economicamenteproductivosy ecol6gicamentesanos. El principal
reto intelectualplanteado por semejante ideal para la "biologia de la conservaci6n,"es el desarrollo de criteriosde
salud e integridadambiental en una biota inherentemente
dindmica, evolutivay saturada por humanos.

crisis,
Today we face an ever-deepeningenvironmental
global in scope. Whatvalues and ideals,what visionof
biotichealthand wholenessshouldguideour response?
Americanconservationbegan as an essentiallymoral
movementand has, ever since, orbitedaround several

ethicalfoci.Here I brieflyreview the historyof American conservationethics as a context for exploringa

centuryconservation
moral paradigmfor twenty-first
biology.
Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau
were thefirstnotableAmericanthinkersto insist,a centuryand a halfago, thatother uses mightbe made of
naturethanmostoftheirfellowcitizenshad theretofore

Paper submitted2/23/89;revisedmanuscriptaccepted9/25/89.

15
ConservationBiology
Volume 4, No. 1, March 1990

16

Whither
Conservation
Ethics?

Callicott

supposed (Nash 1989). Naturecan be a temple,Emerson (1836) enthused,in which to draw near and commune with God (or the Oversoul) (Albanese 1990).
Thoreau(1863) argued,
Too muchcivilizedrefinement,
can overripenthe human spirit;just as too littlecan
coarsenit.In wildness,he thought,lay thepreservation
of the world.
John Muir (1894, 1901) made the RomanticTranscendentalnaturephilosophyof Emersonand Thoreau the basis of a national,morallychangedcampaign
for the appreciationand preservationof wild nature.
especiallyin the New World,
The naturalenvironment,
was vastenoughand richenough,he believed,to satisfy
our deeper spiritualneeds as well as our moremanifest
Thoreau's countercultural
materialneeds. Amplifying
theme,Muirstronglycondemnedprodigaldestruction
of naturein the service of profligatematerialismand
greed(Cohen 1984). In Muir'sopinion,people goingto
forest groves, mountain scenery, and meandering
streamsforreligioustranscendence,aestheticcontemplation,and healing rest and relaxationput these resources to a "better" -

i.e., morallysuperior -

use than

did the lumberbarons,mineralkings,and captainsof

hell-bentupon littleelse thanworshipingat the
industry
shrine of the AlmightyDollar and seizing the Main
Chance (Fox 1981).
mayfindan undemocratic
Criticstoday,as formerly,
presumptionlurkingin the
and thereforeun-American
conservationethic of EmerRomantic-Transcendental
son, Thoreau, and Muir.To suggestthat some of the
thatnatureaffordsare morallysuhumansatisfactions
biases and
periorto othersmayonlyreflectaristocratic
class prejudices (O'Conner 1988). Accordingto Utilitarianism- a popular moraland politicaldoctrineintroducedbyJeremyBentham(1823) - humanhappiness,definedultimatelyin termsof pleasure and pain,
should be the goal of both individualand government
action.And one person'spleasureis not necessarilyanother's.Landscapepainters,Romanticliterati,and Transcendental philosophersmay find beauty,truth,and
goodness in pristinealpine heights,deep forests,and
solitarydales, but the vast majorityof workadayAmericans want affordablebuilding materialand building
sites, unlimitedtap water, cheap food and fiberand
progressand prospergood land to raiseit on, industrial
itygenerally- and,afterall ofthis,maybea littleeasily
accessible outdoorrecreation.
Pinchot,a younger
At the turnof the centuryGifford
a resourceconofJohnMuir,formulated
contemporary
the generaltenetsof Progresservationethicreflecting
sivism,an Americansocial and politicalmovementthen
coming into its own. America'svast biological capital
had been notoriouslyplunderedand squandered,not
forthe benefitof all its citizens,but forthe profitof a
few.Pinchotbluntlyreduced the Romanticpoets' and
Transcendental philosophers' "Nature" to "natural

ConservationBiology
Volume 4, No. 1, March 1990

resources."Indeed, he insistedthat"thereare just two

thingson this material earth - people and natural
resources"(1947:325). Pinchot(1947:325-26) crystalized the ResourceConservationEthicin a mottowhich
he creditsWJ McGee with formulating:
"the greatest
good of the greatestnumberfor the longest time"
without makingdirect referenceto John StuartMill
(1863), Bentham'sUtilitarian
protege,whose summary
moralmaximit echoes.
The firstmoral principleof the Resource Conservation Ethic is equity - the just or fairdistributionof
naturalresourcesamongpresentand also futuregenerationsof consumersand users.Its second moralprincia
ple, equal in importanceto the first,is efficiency
naturalresourceshouldnotbe wastefully
exploited.Just
slightlyless obvious,the principleof efficient
resource
utilizationinvolvesthe concepts of "best" or "highest
use" and "multipleuse."
The "gospel of efficiency,"
as Samuel Hays (1959)
characterizedthe ResourceConservationEthic,also implies a sound scientificfoundation.The Resource ConservationEthicthusbecame wedded to the eighteenthand nineteenth-century
scientificworld view in which
natureis conceived to be a collectionof bits of matter,
assembledinto a hierarchyof externallyrelatedchemical and organismicaggregates,which can be understood and successfullymanipulatedby analyticand reductivemethods.
The Resource ConservationEthic is also wedded to
the correlativesocial science of economics - the scirationalmonads pursuing"prefence of self-interested
erence satisfaction"
in a freemarket.However,because
the market,notoriously,does not take account of
"externalities"- certaincosts of doing business,such
as soil erosion and environmental
pollution- and because standardeconomic calculationsdiscountthe future dollar value of resources in comparison with
presentdollar value, the freemarketcannot be relied
and certainlynot the
upon to achieve themostefficient,
mostprudent,use of naturalresources.Pinchot(1947)
thatgovernmentownerpersuasivelyargued,therefore,
shipor regulationofnaturalresourcesand resourceexploitationis a necessaryremedy.Federal and statebureaucracies,accordingly,were created to implement
and administerconservationpolicy as the twentieth
centuryadvanced.
Since the Resource ConservationEthicwas based so
squarelyupon Progressivedemocraticsocial philosophy
and was rhetorically
associatedwiththemodernsecular
ethic of choice

Utilitarianism-

it triumphed politi-

in the newlycreated
callyand became institutionalized
governmentconservationagencies. The nonconsumptiveuses ofnatureby aesthetes,Transcendentalists,
and
can be accommodatedby aswildernessrecreationalists
signingthem a contingentmarketvalue or "shadowprice" (Krutilla& Fisher1985). In some circumstances

Callicott

such uses may turnout to be the highestor most efficient allocation of a given "resource."Thus, an occasionalotherwiseworthlesswild sop mightbe thrownto
the genteelminority.
The celebrated schism in the traditionalAmierican
conservationmovement- the schism between the
associproperand thePreservationists,
Conservationists
ated with the legendarynames of Pinchot and Muir,
respectively- was thusin thefinalanalysisa matterof
moral (and metaphysical)philosophies.Both
differing
or "anthropocentric."
were essentiallyhuman-centered
Both,in otherwords,regardedhumanbeingsor human
interestsas the onlylegitimateends and nonhumannaturalentitiesand natureas a whole as means.In thenow
standardterminologyof contemporaryenvironmental
and Preservationists,
ethics,for both Conservationists
only people possess intrinsicvalue; naturepossesses
value (Norton 1986). The primary
merelyinstrumental
posited a higher
differenceis thatthe Preservationists
Transcendentalrealityabove and beyond the physical
world and pitted the psychospiritualuse of nature
againstits materialuse. And theyinsistedthatthe one
was incomparablysuperiorto the other.The Conservaand insisted,democrattionistswere more materialistic
ically,thatall competinguses of resourcesshould be
and thatthe fruitsof resource exweighed impartially
ploitationshould be distributedbroadlyand equitably.
AlthoughMuir'spublic campaignfortheappreciation
and preservationof naturewas cast largelyin termsof
the putativesuperiorityof the human spiritualvalues
servedby contactwithundeveloped,wild nature,Muir
also seems to have been the firstAmericanconservationistprivatelyto ponder the propositionthatnature
value - value in and ofitselfitselfpossessed intrinsic
quite apartfromitshumanutilities(no matterwhether
of the more spiritualor more materialvariety).*To articulate this essentiallynonanthropocentric
intuition,
to Biblicalfundamentals
Muir(1916) turned,ironically,
fortherhetoricalwherewithal.
Verydirectlyand plainly
stated,God created man and all the other creatures.
Each of His creatures- man included,but not man
alone - and the creationas a whole are "good" in His
eyes (i.e., in philosophical termsthey have intrinsic
value). Hence, to eradicatea species or to effacenature
is to undo God's creativework,and to subtractso much
divinelyimbuedinherentgoodnessfromtheworld- a
mostimpiousand impertinent
expressionof humanarrogance.
exponentsof
More radicallythanmostcontemporary
the by-nowfamiliarJudeo-Christian
StewardshipEnvi*A ThousandMile Walk to the Gulfwas prepared by William FrederickBadefrom Muir'sjournal of 1867-68 and published twoyears
afterhis death.It was, in Back's words,"theearliestproduct of his
pen," and not originally intendedfor public consumption(Muir
1916:xxv).

Whither
Conservation
Ethics?

17

ronmentalEthic,Muirinsistedthatpeople are justa part

of nature on a par with other creaturesand that all
creatures(including ourselves) are valued equally by
God, for the contributionwe and they make to the
whole of His creation- whetherwe can understand
thatcontributionor not. In Muir'sinimitableprose,
Whyshouldmanvalue himselfas more thana smallpart
of the one greatunitof creation?And what creatureof
all that the Lord has taken the pains to make is not
essentialto thecompletenessofthatunit- thecosmos?
The universewould be incompletewithoutman;but it
would also be incompletewithoutthe smallesttransmicroscopic creaturethatdwells beyond our conceitful
eyes and knowledge.(Muir 1916:139)

Readingbetween the lines,we can, I think,easilysee

thattherewas anothermindset animatingMuir'smoral
vision - an evolutionaryand ecological world view.
Darwinhad unseatedfromhis self-appointed
thronethe
creatureMuirsometimessarcasticallycalled "lordman"
and reduced him to but a "smallpart"of creation,and
thelikesofH. C. Cowles,S. A. Forbes,and F. E. Clements
would soon validateMuir'sintuitionthatthereexistsa
unityand completeness- ifnot in the cosmos or universeat large,certainlyin terrestrial
nature- to which
each creature,no matterhow small,functionally
contributes(McIntosh 1985). This world view held a profoundbutmurkymoralimport.It fellto Aldo Leopold to
bringthe ethicalimplicationsof the ripeningevolutionary-ecologicalparadigmclearlyand fullyto light.
Leopold began his career as a professionalconservationisttrainedin the utilitarianPinchotphilosophyof
the wise use of naturalresources,forthe satisfaction
of
thebroadestpossiblespectrumofhumaninterests,
over
the longesttime(Meine 1988). His ultimatelysuccessful strugglefora systemof wildernessreservesin the
nationalforestswas consciouslymolded to the doctrine
ofhighestuse, and his new techniqueof game managementessentiallyamountedto the directtransference
of
the principlesof forestry
froma standingcrop of large
plants to a standingcrop of large animals (Leopold
1919, 1921). But Leopold graduallycame to the conclusion thatthe Pinchot Resource ConservationEthic
was inadequate,because, in the last analysis,it was untrue.
The ResourceConservationEthic'sclose alliancewith
science proved to be its undoing.Appliedscience cannot be thoroughly segregated from pure science.
resource
Knowledgeof ecology is essentialto efficient
but ecology began to give shape to a radmanagement,
scientificparadigmthanthatwhichlayat
icallydifferent
the veryfoundationsof Pinchot'sphilosophy.From an
ecological perspective,natureis more thana collection
ofexternallyrelateduseful,useless,and noxious species
an elementallandscape ofsoils and waters.It
furnishing
is, rather,a vast,intricatelyorganizedand tightlyintegratedsystem of complexprocesses. It is less like a vast

Conservation
Biology
Volume4, No. 1, March 1990

18

Whither
Conservation
Ethics?

mechanismand more like a vast organism.Specimens

are its cells and species its organs.As Leopold (1939a)
expressed it:
Ecologyis a new fusionpointforall thesciences.... The
emergenceof ecology has placed the economic biologistin a peculiardilemma:withone hand he pointsout
or lack
ofhis searchforutility,
theaccumulatedfindings
of utility,in thisor thatspecies; withthe otherhe lifts
the veil froma biota so complex, so conditionedby
thatno man
interwovencooperationsand competitions,
can say where utilitybeginsor ends.

Thus,we cannotremodelour naturaloikos or houseones,withoutinducingunhold,as we do our artificial

expected disruptions.More especially,we cannot get
rid of the EarlyAmericanfloraland faunal"furniture"
(the prairie flora,bison, elk, wolves, bears) and randomlyintroduceexoticpieces (wheat,cattle,sheep,Englishsparrows,Chinesepheasants,Germancarp,and the
like) thatsuit our fancywithoutinducingdestructive
ecological chain reactions.
Conservation,Leopold came to realize,must aim at
somethinglargerand more comprehensivethana maximumsustainedflowofdesirableproducts(like lumber
and game) and experiences(like sporthuntingand fishing,wildernesstravel,and solitude) garneredfroman
impassivenature (Flader 1974). It must take care to
ensurethe continuedfunctionof naturalprocesses and
the integrityof naturalsystems.For it is upon these,
thathumanresourcesand humanwell-being
ultimately,
depend.
The PinchotResource ConservationEthicis also unofpeople and
trueon the humanside of its bifurcation
naturalresources.Human beingsare not speciallycreated and uniquely valuable demigods any more than
natureitselfis a vastemporiumofgoods and services,a
merepool ofresources.We are,rather,verymucha part
of nature.Muir(1916) gropedto expressthisbioegalitarianconcept in theologicalterms.Leopold did so in
morehonestecological terms.Humanbeingsare "membersofa bioticteam,"plainmembersand citizensofone
hummingbiotic community(Leopold 1949:205). We
ofthebioticcommunity
and the othercitizen-members
thatplants
sinkor swimtogether.Leopold's affirmation
and animals,soils and watersare entitledto fullcitizenship as fellowmembersof the biotic communityis tantamountto the recognitionthattheytoo have intrinsic,
value. An evolutionaryand econot just instrumental,
logical world view,in short,impliesa land ethic.
In sum,then,examininga core sampleof the ethical
sedimentsin the philosophicalbedrock of American
conservation,one may clearlydiscern threeprincipal
strataof laterallycoherentmoral ideals. They are the
PreservationEthic,the ProRomantic-Transcendental
Resource ConservationEthic, and
gressive-Utilitarian
Land Ethic.Americanconthe Evolutionary-Ecological
professionreflect
and
the
conservation
servationpolicy

ConservationBiology
Volume 4, No. 1, March 1990

Callicott

themall - thusgivingriseto internalconflictand,from

an externalpointof view,the appearance of confusion.
The public agencies are still very much ruled by the
turn-of-the-century
Resource ConservationEthic;some
of the most powerfuland influential
privateconservation organizationsremain firmlyrooted in the even
older Romantic-Transcendental
philosophy;while contemporaryconservationbiologyis clearlyinspiredand
governed by the Evolutionary-EcologicalLand Ethic
(Soule 1985).
As we approachthe end of the twentiethcentury,we
face a situationanalogousto thatfacedby our forebears
at the end of the nineteenth.Then, the Americanfrontierhad closed and what had once appeared to be an
effectively
boundless and superabundantNew World
suddenlyhad palpablelimits.Presentlyour generationis
pressinghardagainsttheecological limitsnot justofthe
continent,but of the entireplanet.We are witnessing
the extension of the industrialjuggernautinto every
cornerofthe globe. Soils are washingintothe sea; toxic
chemicals are polluting surface and ground waters;
chainsawsand bulldozersare wreakinghavoc in tropical
a significant
forests- and coincidentallyexterminating
portionof the Earth'scomplementof species - while
acid rainis witheringtheforestsand sterilizing
thelakes
in temperateregionsof the northernhemisphere;chloroflourocarbonsare eroding the planet's protective
ozone shield and fossilfuelconsumptionis loadingthe
Earth's atmosphere with carbon dioxide. Since
Leopold's Land Ethic is fullyinformedby and firmly
grounded in evolutionaryand ecological biology, it
antecedentsas
oughtto supplantitsnineteenth-century
our moralanchorin the face of the second wave of the
environmental
crisisloomingthreateningly
on the horizon - but we need to be veryclear about its implications.
The word "preserve"in Leopold's (1949:224-225)
famoussummarymoralmaxim- "A thingis rightwhen
ittendsto preservetheintegrity,
and beautyof
stability,
the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise"- is unfortunate
because it seems to ally
in
Leopold and the Land Ethicwiththe Preservationists
the century-oldPreservationversus Conservationconflict.We tend to thinkof Leopold as havingbegun his
career in the latter camp and graduallycome over,
armed with new arguments,to the former.Leopold's
historicalassociationwiththewildernessmovementcementsthisimpression.BryanNorton(1989), however,
has persuasivelyargued thatLeopold was fromfirstto
last committedto active land management,not passive
A reviewof Leopold's unpublishedpapers
preservation.
and published but long-forgottenarticles confirms
Norton'sanalysis.Leopold's visionwent beyond the eitherefficiently
develop or lock up and reservedilemma
of modern conservation.Leopold was primarilyconcerned,on the groundas well as in theory,with inte-

Callicott

Whither
Conservation
Ethics?

gratingan optimalmix of wildlife- both floraland

faunal- withhumanhabitationand economic exploitationof land.
In a handwritten
paper composed shortlyaftera fourmonthtripto Germanyin 1935 - and ironically,but
revealingly,
entitled"Wilderness"- Leopold wrote,
To an Americanconservationist,
one of the mostinsistentimpressionsreceivedfromtravelin Germanyis the
lack of wildness in the Germanlandscape. Forestsare
there.... Game is there.... Streams and lakes are
there.... But yet,to the criticaleye thereis something
lacking.... I did not hope to findin Germanyanything
resembling the great "wilderness areas" which we
dream about and talkabout,and sometimesbrieflyset
aside, in our National Forests and Parks.... I speak
ratherof a certainqualitywhich should be, but is not
found in the ordinarylandscape of producingforests
and inhabitedfarms.(Leopold 1991)

In a morefullydeveloped essayentitled"The Farmer

as a Conservationist,"Leopold (1939b) regales his
readerwitha rusticidyllin which thewild and domesticatedfloraland faunaldenizens of a Wisconsinfarmscape are featheredintoone anotherto createa harmoniouswhole. In additionto cash and theusual supplyof
vegetablesand meat,lumberand fuelwood, Leopold's
envisioned farmsteadaffordsits farmfamilyvenison,
quail and othersmall game, and a varietyof fruitand
nuts fromits woodlot, wetlands,and fallowfields;its
pond and streamyieldpan fishand trout.It also affords
intangibles- songbirds,wildflowers,
the hoot of owls,
the bugle of cranes,and intellectualadventuresaplenty
in naturalhistory.To obtainthisbounty,thefarmfamily
set aside acreage,fence
mustdo morethanpermanently
woodlots,and leave wetlandsundrained.Theymustsow
food and cover patches,plant trees,stock the stream
conceive and skilland pond,and generallythoughtfully
fullyexecute scores of other modifications,
large and
small,of the biota thattheyinhabit.
The pressureof growinghumannumbersand rapid
development,especiallyin the ThirdWorld,implies,I
think,thata globalconservationstrategy
focusedprimarilyon "wilderness"preservationand theestablishment
ofnaturereservesrepresentsa holdingactionat bestand a losingpropositionat last.I supportwildernessand
nature reserves

categorically

with my purse as

well as mypen. But facedwiththe soberingrealitiesof

the comingcentury,the onlyviable philosophyof conservationis, I submit,a generalizedversionofLeopold's
vision of a mutuallybeneficialand enhancingintegrationofthehumaneconomywiththeeconomyofnature
in additionto holdingon to as much untrammeled
wildernessas we can.
Lack of theoretical justificationcomplements the
of conservingbiodiverpresentsheer impracticability
sity solely by excluding man and his works (Botkin
1990). Change -not
only evolutionarychange,but

19

climatic,successional,seasonal, and stochasticchange

is natural.And "man"is a partofnature.Therefore,it
willno longerdo to say,simply,thatwhatexistedbefore
the agricultural-industrial
variety of Homo sapiens
evolved or arrived,as the case maybe, is the ecological
normin comparisonwithwhichall anthropogenicmodificationsare degradations.To define environmental
quality- theintegrity,
stability,
and beautyofthebiotic
- dynamically
community
and positively,not statically
and negatively,
is partof the intellectualchallengethat
conservationbiologyconfronts.
contemporary
Happily,Leopold's conservationideal of ecosystems
thatare at once productiveand healthyis capable of
generalizationbeyond the well-wateredtemperatelatitudes and pastorallifestyles
characteristicof the upper
Midwest.CharlesM. Peters,AlwynH. Gentry,and Robert 0. Mendelsohn(1989) reportthatthe nuts,fruits,
oils,latex,fiber,and medicinesannuallyharvestedfrom
a representative
hectare of standingrainforest
in Peru,
forexample,are ofgreatereconomic value thanthesaw
logs and pulp wood strippedfroma similarhectaregreatereven than if,followingclear-cuttingand slash
burning,the land is in additionconvertedto a forest
monocultureor to a cattlepasture.They conclude that
"withoutquestion,the sustainableexploitationof nonwood forestresourcesrepresentsthe most immediate
and profitablemethodforintegrating
the use and conservationofAmazonianforests"(Peterset al. 1989:656).
Arturo Gomez-Pompa (1987) has argued that the
greaterincidence of trees bearing edible fruitsthan
would occur naturallyin theextantremnantsofCentral
Americanrainforest
suggeststhatthese "pristine"habitats may once actuallyhave been part of an extensive
Mayapermaculture.
Of course we must remember David Ehrenfeld's
(1976) classic warningthatwe not put all our conservationeggs in the economic basket.It is too much to
hope that a standardbenefit-costcomparisonwill, in
everycase, indicate thatthe sustainablealternativeto
destructivedevelopmentis more profitable.CertainlyI
am not here urgingan unregeneratereturnto the economicdeterminism
oftheResourceConservationEthic.
Rather,I am simplypointingout thatit is oftenpossible
forpeople to make a good living- and, in some instances,even the best livingto be had - coexisting
withratherthanconvertingthe indigenousbiotic community.AndI am urgingthatwe striveto reconcile and
integratehuman economic activitieswith biological
conservation.Expressedin the vernacular,I am urging
thatwe thinkin termsof "win-win"ratherthan"zerosum." Further,I would like explicitlyto state - and
therebyinvitecriticaldiscussionof - Leopold's more
heretical,fromthe Preservationist
point of view, implied corollaryproposition,viz.,thathuman economic
activitiesmaynotonlycoexistwithhealthyecosystems,
but thattheymay actuallyenhance them.CitingGary
-

ConservationBiology
Volume 4, No. 1, March 1990

20

Whither
Conservation
Ethics?

Nabhan(1982), in a more recentdiscussionEhrenfeld

(1989:9) providesa provocativeexample,
In the Papago IndianCountryofArizona'sand Mexico's
miles
SonoranDesert... thereare two oases onlythirty
apart.The northernone ... is in the U.S. Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument,fullyprotected as a bird
withno humanactivityexcept birdwatching
sanctuary,
allowed. All Papago farmingwhich has existed there
was stopped in 1957. The otheroasis,
since prehistory
... over the border in Mexico, is stillbeing farmedin
traditionalPapago style.... Visitingthe oases "on backto-backdays threetimesduringone year,"Nabhan,acfoundfewerthan thirtycompanied by ornithologists,
two species ofbirdsat the ParkService'sbirdsanctuary
species at the farmedoasis.
but more thansixty-five

Fromthis"modernparableof conservation,"Ehrenfeld
concludes that "the presence of people may enhance
the species richnessof an area, ratherthan exert the
effectthatis more familiarto us." Is species richnessa
measureof ecological health?What otherstandardsof
How do these
can be formulated?
biological integrity
norms all fittogetherto formmodels of fitenvironments?Can we succeed, as the Papago seem to have
done, in enrichingthe environmentas we enrichourselves?
Cited
Literature
Albanese,C. L. 1990. Naturereligionin America:fromthe Alof Chicago Press,
gonkianIndiansto the new age. University
Chicago,Illinois.
J. 1823. Principlesof moralsand legislation.ClarenBentham,
don Press,Oxford,England.
Botkin,D. 1990. Discordant harmonies.Oxford University
Press,New York,New York.
Cohen,M. P. 1984. The pathlessway:JohnMuirand theAmerofWisconsinPress,Madison,Wisican wilderness.University
consin.
Ehrenfeld,D. W. 1976. The conservationof non-resources.
AmericanScientist64:647-655.
who will
D. W. 1989. Lifein the next millennium:
Ehrenfeld,
be left in the earth's community?Orion Nature Quarterly
8(2):4-13.
Emerson,R.W. 1836. Nature.JamesMonroe and Co., Boston,
Massachusetts.
Flader,S. L. 1974. Thinkinglikea mountain:Aldo Leopold and
the evolutionof an ecological attitudetowarddeer, wolves,
of MissouriPress,Columbia,Missouri.
and forests.University
Fox, S. 1981. JohnMuirand his legacy:the Americanconservation movement.Little,Brown and Co., Boston,Massachusetts.
G6mez-Pompa,A., and A. Kaus. 1988. Conservationby TraditionalCulturesin theTropics.In Vance Martin,editor.Forthe
Conservationof Earth.FulcrumInc., Golden,Colorado.
the
Hays,S. P. 1959. Conservationand thegospelofefficiency:
progressive conservation movement. Harvard University
Press,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Conservation Biology
Volume 4, No. 1, March 1990

Callicott

Krutilla,
J.,and A. Fisher.1985. The economics of naturalenvironments:
studiesin the valuationof commodityand amenityresources.Rev. ed. Resourcesforthe Future,Washington,
D.C.
Leopold,A. 1919. Forestryand game conservation.Journalof
Forestry16:404-i 1.
Leopold,A. 1921. The wildernessand its place in forestrecreationpolicy.Journalof Forestry19:718-21.
Leopold,A. 1939a A biotic view of land.Journalof Forestry
37:113-16.
Leopold,A. 1939b. The farmeras a conservationist.
American
Forests45:294-299, 316, 323.
Leopold,A. 1949. A Sand CountyAlmanac:and sketcheshere
and there.OxfordUniversity
Press,New York.
Leopold,A. 1991. Wilderness.In S. L. Fladerand J. Baird Callicott,editors.The ecological conscience and other essays.
of WisconsinPress,Madison,Wisconsin.
University
McIntosh,R. P. 1985. The backgroundofecology:conceptand
theory.CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge,England.
Meine,C. 1988. Aldo Leopold: his lifeand work.University
of
WisconsinPress,Madison,Wisconsin.
Mill,J.S. 1863. Utilitarianism.
Parker,Son and Brown,London,
England.
Muir,J.1894. The mountainsofCalifornia.Century,New York.
Boston
Muir,J. 1901. Our nationalparks.HoughtonMifflin,
Massachusetts.
MuirJ. 1916. A thousand mile walk to the gulf.Houghton
Mifflin,
Boston,Massachusetts.
Nabhan,G. P. 1982. The desertsmellslike rain:a naturalistin
Papago country.NorthPointPress,San Francisco,California.
Nash, R. F. 1989. The rightsof nature:a historyof environmentalethics.Universityof Wisconsin Press, Madison,Wisconsin.
Norton,B. G. 1986. Conservationand preservation:a concepEnvironmental
Ethics8:195-220.
tual rehabilitation.
theland ethic:towardan
Norton,B. G. 1989. Operationalizing
integratedtheoryof environmental
management.In W. Stout
and P. B. Thompson,editors.Beyond the large farm.Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication.
O'Conner,J. 1988. Capitalism,nature,socialism:a theoretical
introduction.
Capitalism,Nature,Socialism1:3-38.
Peters,C. M.,A. H. Gentry,and R. 0. Mendelsohn.1989. ValuNature339:655-56.
ationof an Amazonianrainforest.
Pinchot,G. 1947. Breakingnew ground.Harcourt,Brace,and
Co., New York.
Soule, M. E. 1985. What is conservationbiology?BioScience
35:727-733.
Thoreau,H. D. 1863. Excursions.Ticknorand Fields,Boston,
Massachusetts.