Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How humans impact earth negatively essay
Assignment for environmental issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
An ecological ethic as defined by Aldo Leopold is “a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence.” Leopold’s Land Ethic is an ethical viewpoint that acknowledges the vast and complex interconnection of all living and non-living things in biota that make up our planet and points to a way of living that, according to Leopold, “tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.” Part of the understanding involved in the Land Ethic is that biota are a complex linkage of diverse and interdependent chains which form a pyramid with soil and microbes forming the base and apex predators forming the top. Humans fall somewhere in the middle with other omnivores. Due to humanity’s ability to make tools we have been able to enact violent changes to the biota that are drastically different in both the haste and breadth compared to the slow and confined evolutionary changes that naturally occur. This has essentially reversed the natural evolution of the biota, increasing in complexity and diversity, and truncated the pyramid removing apex predators and causing of the energy in the biotic circuit. Due to the interconnected nature of the biotic pyramid, this depletion of energy has wide reaching effects. Leopold’s Land Ethic would …show more content…
I think there is even more evidence for his observation now. Many examples of unethical land use are seen in the film “A Fierce Green Fire,” which was inspired by Leopold’s writings. From the clear cutting of the rain forests of South America for extremely unsustainable cattle ranching to the building of oil and gas pipelines across major sources of fresh water we can still see that humanity has a long way to go to reach a land
Although Leopold’s love of great expanses of wilderness is readily apparent, his book does not cry out in defense of particular tracts of land about to go under the axe or plow, but rather deals with the minutiae, the details, of often unnoticed plants and animals, all the little things that, in our ignorance, we have left out of our managed acreages but which must be present to add up to balanced ecosystems and a sense of quality and wholeness in the landscape.
Leopold would most likely approve of the work being done to preserve Gorongosa National Park and would agree with Wilson in that nature is our home and we should treat it as such, but Leopold, unlike Wilson, argues that it is our moral obligation, and not just our pleasure, to respect nature. Additionally, Wilson seems to focus specifically on the plants and animals that make up an ecosystem, but Leopold extends his focus to non-living components such as soil and water because they are instrumental in maintaining the integrity of land communities. Leopold might urge Wilson to make sure that he is not simply educating people at Gorongosa, but really help them genuinely understand land ethics. This way, humans can evolve a sense of praise and approval for preserving the integrity and beauty of the biotic community (262), and social disapproval for doing the exact
In my generation, I am able to catch what is relatively the tail end of this slow extinction. And to be quite honest, I had not devoted a moment of thought to this phenomenon until I read Leopold’s passages. In fact, I am always the first one to compliment a new highway project that saves me five minutes of driving or even a tidy farmstead as I pass. Now, more than ever, my thoughts are in limbo. It was just last week when my dad pointed out an area off the highway that displayed miles of slowly rolling cornfields. His reaction was to the beauty of the countryside. Mine was to question his. I found myself thinking about all of the hard work that created that beauty, and then how much more beautiful it was fifty, a hundred, or even two centuries ago. Only the mind’s eye can create this beauty now, and that is exactly why Leopold’s concerns are validated.
nature. Two years, in the prime of his life, were spent living in a shack
John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold all have moderately different views and ideas about the environment in terms of its worth, purpose, use and protection. At one extensively non-anthropocentric extreme, Muir’s views and ideas placed emphasis on protecting environmental areas as a moral obligation. That is to say, Muir believed that wilderness environments should be used for divine transcendence, spiritual contemplation, as a place for repenting sins and obtaining devotional healing, rather than being used for exploitative materialistic greed and destructive consumption, such as industrialism, mining, and lumbering. At the other extreme, anthropocentric, Pinchot views nature simply as natural resources. In other words, nature is explicitly
I think that in this chapter Leopold is showing the reader how the different people see the land and the things in and around that land. He also tells us that even the conservation commission feels impelled to kill animals and birds to help the production of a lesser species.
Pinchot become known at the time as the man who saved U.S. forests. He introduced sustained-yield forestry---cutting no more in a year than the forests could produce new growth. Pinchot’s goal was to show private landowners that they could too can harvest trees without damaging the forest and graze livestock without denuding the range. He is known for reforming the management and development of forests in the U.S. Pinchot believed that it was important for people to depend on natural resources, and conservation must be utilitarian. The conservation movement was movement for all people and all people should control resources, not only few businesses. Pinchot believed in Government interference and regulation. He says, “The obvious and certain remedy is for the government to hold and control the public range until it can pass into hands of settlers who will make their homes upon it” (292). I like that he wants to get everybody’s attention and make them responsible for the future by saying,” The vast possibilities of our great future will become realities only if we make ourselves, in a sense, responsible for the future. The planned and orderly development and conservation of our natural resources is the first duty of the United States” (293).
Although his actions were admirable and act as evidence to integrity, the writings of Henry David Thoreau and Emerson reveal a haughty and pretentious individual. Thoreau's courage was noble. He was quick to immerse himself in his beliefs
He believes that the wilderness has helped form us and that if we allow industrialization to push through the people of our nation will have lost part of themselves; they will have lost the part of themselves that was formed by the wilderness “idea.” Once the forests are destroyed they will have nothing to look back at or to remind them of where they came from or what was, and he argues everyone need to preserve all of what we have now.
An American Author, Transcendentalist and tax resister, Henry David Thoreau was born in Concord Massachusetts, and lived there most of his life. He was opposed to many of the things that went on in our society and debated many issues in his life. Two of these major issues are , the Mexican American War and the implement of Slavery in our society. This was the reason for many of his writings include “Slavery in Massachusetts” and “Civil Disobedience” where he wrote about his principles and views against the U.S government and their involvement in the Mexican American War and the evil of Slavery. Thoreau opposed to these because they promote unjust government practices which he was strongly against.
Leopold defends his position the advent of a new ethical development, one that deals with humans’ relations to the land and its necessity. This relationship is defined as the land ethic, this concept holds to a central component referred to as the ecological consciousness. The ecological consciousness is not a vague ideal, but one that is not recognized in modern society. It reflects a certainty of individual responsibility for the health and preservation of the land upon which we live, and all of its components. If the health of the land is upheld, its capacity of self-renewal and regeneration is maintained as well. To date, conservation has been our sole effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Leopold holds that if the mainstream embraces his ideals of a land ethic and an ecological consciousness, the beauty, stability and integrity of our world will be preserved.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
The land ethic is a holistic view of ecosystems. It entails an entire view of a biotic community to include all of nature, not just the individualistic components which incorporate our environment. Great efforts would be taken by supporters of the ‘land ethic’ to support an ecosystem that was threatened. The individual components that comprise the ecosystem are not of great concern to supporters of this theory; they would argue that a threat to an individual organism, even protected or endangered, should be evaluated on whether or not the protected or endangered species does endanger the integrity of the whole system. A supporter of the land ethic argument would have consequences to weigh regarding the value of the threatened individual and how it relates to the survival of individuals of the group. If the group were to suffer a threatening blow that could affect the livelihood or existence of members of the controlling group one would expect that the threatened organism could be evaluated for possible “non-protection”. In contrast, a Respect for Nature ethic believes that any animal or living organism should be protected because that organism is deserving of its own individual worth; the fact that it is protected or endangered would be of little concern to these supporters. The simple fact that an individual is threatened is more than sufficient to justify that great efforts be taken to protect that individual entity. The Respect for Nature ethic followers would argue that every organism is worthy of protection because of an inherent worth that entitles that entity to protection from destruction.
“Unless humanity is suicidal, it should want to preserve, at the minimum, the natural life-support systems and processes required to sustain its own existence” (Daily p.365). I agree with scientist Gretchen Daily that drastic action is needed now to prevent environmental disaster. Immediate action and changes in attitude are not only necessary for survival but are also morally required. In this paper, I will approach the topic of environmental ethics from several related sides. I will discuss why the environment is a morally significant concern, how an environmental ethic can be developed, and what actions such an ethic would require to maintain and protect the environment.
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.