The article the Land Ethic was intriguing to say the least.

The author takes

you through the need for man to conserve the land around him. Not just for

economic gain, and purpose, but because he should realize that he is a part of the

land. He show us how we have used, and conserved the resources of the land only

for economic reasons, and as little as we can get away with. The author describes

how we have done things that have damaged the land through our efforts to

preserve it the way we want to, and the author goes over what we need to do as a

society, to work towards gaining an actual land ethic instead of thinking of the land

as a resource.

The author originally shows us what he calls the ethical sequence. He

compares mans co-operative mechanisms like those of politics, and economy to

symbiotic relationships in nature. He does this to show how we have the same

relationship with the land as the other creatures living in it. He also goes on to

expose the differences in how we define what the land is. One definition being the

soil that we live on, and the other being the soil, water, plants, and animals of the

earth being the land. With the first definition of land allows man the ability to say

that the land is just a thing. Dirt that should be used to grow crops, or raise

livestock so that a man can provide for himself and his family. The second definition

forces man to see the land as a living system that he is a part of, and that he should

help to maintain.

Man has only really protected the land as it would benefit himself

economically. The Author shows us this through historical examples of land

preservation in Wisconsin. He tells of how the farming of the native soil was causing

the soil to erode rapidly, and that the community as a whole came together making

a rule that the farmers would decide how they would stop this degradation though
use of native grasses to replenish the earth. At the same time the author shows how

after many years the farmers who make up these rules of soil preservation have yet

to form and set any finite rules in place. He goes on to give examples of how in this

community a farmer can clear woods in areas where the soil will erode quickly and

have no worries of repercussions from the community for doing so. Being as that

the only thing, that there is to worry about is how much can I get from the land,

what real motivation is there to protect that grove of trees keeping a hillside intact?

Even acts of conserving the land can damage it. If we bring in fertilizers that

arent natural to the native land that its being used on; they actually have the

ability to change the makeup and the behavior of the land it is being used on. Land

that has been use to a certain natural level of nitrogen that is introduces to foreign

fertilizers containing much higher or lower amounts of nitrogen may no longer be

able to support the plants that are native to the area, or may decrease the yield of

said plant. Other conservation efforts like that of re planting trees after logging an

area can cause harm to the habitat. When new trees are planted in an area of clear

cut it can be harmful especially if the trees being introduced are more aggressive

than the trees that were cut down. The new trees might draw far more nutrients

from the soil than the previous trees. The new trees might not provide food for the

local wildlife that the other trees did; displacing other species that have naturally

lived there for ages.

Finally the author goes over how we as humanity can in fact make a positive

difference in the way that the earth is used. The answer is to not look at the land as

an economic resource, but to realize that we are in fact a part of the land ourselves,

and have a responsibility to maintain and work with, and protect it as it is. He said

that we as a society we need to learn to love, and respect, and admire the land in
order to be more ethical towards it. If we are to start treating, and using the land as

it should be treated then man has to have a priority to care for what is there, and

not for what can be there. Man needs to understand that his actions effect not just

the plants that he removes, the ones that he replaces them with, or the amount of

gain that will come to him from doing so, but the impact of what he has taken away

from the wildlife of the area that he is planting. The impact on the soil that he is

putting foreign nutrients into, and what that means for the future. Treat the land as

a living thing, and not just a resource.

1. My conservation philosophy has for many years been leave it as you found

it, take only what you need, protect what is there so that others can enjoy

it too, do what you can to make a difference, and that nature is a precious

gift. I came to hold these beliefs because I played in the deserts of New

Mexico as a child. The land was my friend. I have seen beautiful places

that were full of wonder and magic turned into housing, and stores, and it

broke my heart every time.

2. I would say that to apply this ethic, and this may just be the voice of my

generation talking you need to look into alternative methods of doing

things. Alternative energy sources, land management, and proper

education on how to interact with the native environment. There is no

reason that we need to have 2000 square foot homes that take more

power, and resources to keep warm, and make nice. There are many small

things that we can do to make that difference.

3. I would say that it is very similar unfortunately. I hear more and more

about land conservation projects, and global warming, but at the same

time I see government making national park lands open for development,

and building new and un-nessacery oil pipelines that threaten our
 countries environment. I see a large movement coming from my

generation towards wildlife conservation, but having grown up in the

comfort of generations that didnt care as much Im not sure I see big

change on the horizon.

4. To me that would mean building wildlife bridges and tunnels over and

under major highway systems. It would mean greater resistance, or

permitting required to develop wetland, and forested areas, and it would

mean no longer being able to develop on the mountainside for the

preservation of natural habitat, and that its a stupid freaking place for

houses.
5. I do agree with the authors statement about a thing being right when it

preserves the integrity of the biotic community. To me the land/ natural

environment that is around us is incredibly alive. Im not saying that the

preservation of a field of sage is more important than a person/s life. The

land and everything living in it deserves to have a voice in the matter of

its use, and how it is to be used.

6. I would say that beauty is more motivating to me. The obvious argument

is that the land that is not beautiful doesnt matter but that isnt how I

feel. I feel that if a place has beauty it is able to inspire love, respect, and

admiration; all the things needed for a land ethic. I believe that all land

has beauty including swamps, deserts, tundra, forests, beaches, and

everything in between.
7. I would have to say that it emanates from self-interest. I find beauty in

nature, and as a kid the desert, and creeks, and fields, and forests were

my playground. As I grew older I got to see many of the places I had come

to have relationships with get developed into houses, and roads, and

parks. I can say first hand that the land does not feel the same after
 something like that. It losses characteristics, in the energy, the plants and

animals living there, and that is why it is a motivation of self-interest.

I found this reading to be a very useful exercise. It reminded me of things I

had forgotten and thing that I didnt even realize were going on. Admittedly I

had to keep reminding myself that this article was written in the 1940s, and

not today. I found it very informative in the way the author defined ethics in

the beginning. He painted a very clear picture about how our minds work

when it comes to perceiving the world around us. It really opened my eyes

when he went over the damage that traditional methods of land conservation

can cause to an environment. It made me really notice all of the variables

involved. I was also intrigued by his description of energy in the land. I dont

disagree with it but it was surprising to see, what is almost an eastern/new

age description of interactions pf life in an article from the 1940s. I think that

everything in the article is as relevant today as it was when it was written if

not more so. I would actually highly recommend this as a read to others, and

actually have added it to my personal library so, that I can read it again.