Ecocentrism: Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic and Critiques of Conservationism

CHAPTER 5 ECOCENTRISM

ECOCENTRISM: THE VIEW THAT BOTH INDIVIDUAL LIVING THINGS AND CERTAIN ECOLOGICAL WHOLES (E.G., SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS) HAVE MORAL STANDING, AND THAT OUR PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN SHOULD BE WITH THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF ECOLOGICAL WHOLES.

HOW ECOCENTRISM DIFFERS FROM BIOCENTRISM: BIOCENTRISM IS A LIFE- CENTERED VIEW THAT CLAIMS THAT ONLY LIVING THINGS HAVE MORAL STANDING. ECOCENTRISM IS A NATURE-CENTERED VIEW THAT ASSERTS THAT SOME NON-LIVING THINGS (LIKE ECOSYSTEMS) ALSO HAVE MORAL STANDING.

THE FOUNDER AND LEADING REPRESENTATIVE OF ECOCENTRISM: ALDO LEOPOLD (1887 1948). LEOPOLD S MOST IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL WORK: A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC. (1949).

LEOPOLD DEFENDS A GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC HE CALLS THE LAND ETHIC.

LEOPOLD PRESENTS HIS LAND ETHIC AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE HIGHLY ANTHROPOCENTRIC BRAND OF CONSERVATIONISM THAT PREVAILED IN HIS DAY (THE 1940 S).

ACCORDING TO THAT BRAND OF CONSERVATIONISM, WE SHOULD CONSERVE AND ACTIVELY MANAGE NATURAL RESOURCES IN A SUSTAINABLE WAY IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE LONG-TERM HUMAN BENEFIT AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

LEOPOLD OFFERS THREE MAJOR CRITICISMS OF THAT BRAND OF CONSERVATIONISM:

1. NATURE IS SO COMPLEX AND INTERCONNECTED THAT WHEN HUMANS TRY TO ACTIVELY MANAGE IT FOR HUMAN BENEFIT, THEY OFTEN SCREW THINGS UP IN UNEXPECTED WAYS. EXAMPLES?

ONE OF LEOPOLDS EXAMPLES: EXTERMINATING WOLVES AND OTHER APEX PREDATORS FROM THE AMERICAN WEST, THEREBY LEADING TO AN OVERPOPULATION OF DEER AND OTHER ANIMALS, RESULTING IN OVER- GRAZING, SOIL EROSION, AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.

LEOPOLDS CRITICISMS OF CONSERVATION (CONT D): 2. CONSERVATION MEASURES MOTIVATED SOLELY BY ECONOMIC GAIN TEND TO IGNORE ORGANISMS THAT HAVE LITTLE DIRECT COMMERCIAL VALUE BUT MAY BE ESSENTIAL FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH.

LEOPOLDS CRITICISMS (CONT D): 3. CONSERVATION MEASURES TEND TO BE INEFFECTIVE IF PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY ECONOMIC CONCERNS. EXAMPLE: LACK OF CONCERN FOR TOPSOIL EROSION WHEN SHORT- TERM PROFITS CAN BE EARNED.

ACCORDING TO LEOPOLD, TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT WE NEED TO SHIFT TO A WHOLE NEW WAY OF THINKING ABOUT NATURE: A LAND ETHIC.

ACCORDING TO THE LAND ETHIC, 1. WE SHOULD EXTEND DIRECT ETHICAL CONCERN TO THE LAND, I.E., TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ITSELF (INCLUDING SOILS, WATERS, AND OTHER NON- LIVING PARTS OF THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY ).

2. WE SHOULD SEE OURSELVES NOT AS CONQUERORS OF THE LAND BUT AS PLAIN MEMBERS AND CITIZENS OF THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY.

3. OUR ULTIMATE GUIDING PRINCIPLE (LEOPOLD S SUMMARY MORAL MAXIM ) IN THINKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE: 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.

LEOPOLDS CENTRAL ARGUMENT FOR THE LAND ETHIC: 1. HUMANS, IN VIRTUE OF THEIR LONGSTANDING HUMAN-CENTERED CONQUER-THE-LAND MINDSET, ARE NOW CAUSING GREAT AND IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

LEOPOLDS CENTRAL ARGUMENT (CONT D): 2. THUS, IT IS AN ECOLOGICAL NECESSITY TO ABANDON TRADITIONAL HUMAN- AND ECONOMIC- CENTERED WAYS OF VIEWING NATURE AND ADOPT AN ECOCENTRIC LAND ETHIC.

LEOPOLDS CENTRAL ARGUMENT (CONT D): 3. HUMANS NATURALLY OR INSTINCTIVELY TEND TO CARE MOST FOR KITH AND KIN THEIR RELATIVES, FRIENDS, AND NEIGHBORS.

LEOPOLDS CENTRAL ARGUMENT (CONT D) 4. RECENT ADVANCES IN SCIENCE AND IN HUMAN ETHICAL DEVELOPMENT NOW MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO REGARD THE LAND AS KITH AND KIN, AS PART OF OUR HUMAN COMMUNITY.

LEOPOLDS CENTRAL ARGUMENT (CONT D): 5. THUS, IT IS NOW A REAL PSYCHOLOGICAL POSSIBILITY TO ADOPT A NEW ECOCENTRIC LAND ETHIC, A NEW ECOLOGICAL CONSCIENCE.

LEOPOLDS CENTRAL ARGUMENT (CONT D): 6. THUS, WE BOTH CAN AND SHOULD ADOPT A NEW ECOCENTRIC LAND ETHIC. CONVINCING?

ATTRACTIONS OF LEOPOLD S LAND ETHIC: 1. UNLIKE MANY OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL THEORIES, IT FITS WELL WITH MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTAL THOUGHT.

EXAMPLES: 1. FOCUS ON THE HEALTH OF ECOSYSTEMS AS A WHOLE. 2. FOCUS ON NATIVE SPECIES OVER INVASIVE ONES.

3. PERMITTING HUNTING OR SELECTIVE CULLING TO KEEP OVERPOPULATED OR INVASIVE SPECIES IN CHECK. (LEOPOLD WAS HIMSELF AN AVID HUNTER.)

4. AVOIDING EXTREMIST CLAIMS (E.G., THAT RADICAL REDUCTIONS IN HUMAN POPULATION ARE NECESSARY, OR THAT ALL PLANTS AND ANIMALS MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY). LEOPOLD S LAND ETHIC MANDATES THAT WE EXTEND DIRECT ETHICAL CONCERN TO THE LAND, NOT THAT WE CHUCK CIVILIZATION AND RETURN TO A HUNTER-GATHERER STAGE.

PROBLEMS/ISSUES WITH LEOPOLD S LAND ETHIC: 1. HOW EXACTLY SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND LEOPOLD S SUMMARY MORAL MAXIM THAT A THING IS RIGHT WHEN IT TENDS TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, STABILITY, AND BEAUTY OF THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY ?

IN PARTICULAR, SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND THE SUMMARY MORAL MAXIM LITERALLY OR AS A KIND OF RULE OF THUMB WITH REASONABLE EXCEPTIONS? IF THE LATTER, WHAT EXCEPTIONS?

OTHER ISSUES WITH LEOPOLD S SUMMARY MORAL MAXIM: * WHAT IS A BIOTIC COMMUNITY ? HOW MANY BIOTIC COMMUNITIES EXIST IN, SAY, THE ARCTIC TUNDRA OR YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK? CAN A PERSON BELONG TO MORE THAN ONE BIOTIC COMMUNITY AT A TIME? IF SO, WHICH SHOULD THEY PRIORITIZE?

OTHER ISSUES (CONTD): * WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR A BIOTIC COMMUNITY TO POSSESS INTEGRITY ? IF I PLANT A FLOWER GARDEN IN MY BACKYARD, HAVE I WRONGLY DESTROYED THE INTEGRITY OF SOME BIOTIC COMMUNITY?

OTHER ISSUES (CONT D) *INTEGRITY, STABILITY, AND BEAUTY SEEM TO BE DIFFERENT AND POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING VALUES. WHAT SHOULD WE DO IF THEY POINT IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS?

PROBLEMS/ISSUES WITH LEOPOLD S LAND ETHIC (CONT D): 2. AT SEVERAL POINTS, LEOPOLD SUGGESTS THAT SCIENCE SUPPORTS THE LAND ETHIC ESPECIALLY THE CLAIM THAT WE SHOULD REGARD OURSELVES AS PLAIN CITIZENS AND MEMBERS OF THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY. BUT DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT THE LAND ETHIC? IF SO, HOW EXACTLY?

PROBLEMS/ISSUES WITH LEOPOLD (CONT D): 3. LEOPOLD SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THE GOOD OF THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY ALWAYS TRUMPS THE GOOD OF INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS. IF SO, IS THIS AN UNACCEPTABLE FORM OF ECO-FASCISM ?

PROBLEMS/ISSUES WITH LEOPOLD: 4. LEOPOLD SAYS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PRIME DIRECTIVE SHOULD BE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, ETC. OF BIOTIC COMMUNITIES.

BUT: * IS IT OUR ROLE TO PRESERVE EXISTING HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS? WON T THIS REQUIRE CONSTANT AND MASSIVE HUMAN INTERVENTIONS TO RESTORE NATURALLY DISRUPTED ECOSYSTEMS AFTER FLASH FLOODS, ICE STORMS, VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, ETC.? AND WHY SPEAK ONLY OF PRESERVING CURRENT HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS? WHAT ABOUT RESTORING BIOTIC COMMUNITIES HUMANS HAVE DAMAGED?

* IS IT EVER OK TO SEEK TO IMPROVE NATURE, E.G., BY DAMNING A RIVER TO MAKE THE DESERT BLOOM OR PREVENT DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS?

* IF HUMANS MUST ALWAYS PRESERVE EXISTING HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS, DOES THIS OPEN LEOPOLD TO THE CHARGE OF MISANTHROPY HOSTILITY TO HUMANKIND AND HUMAN PROGRESS? AGAIN, HOW DO WE BALANCE OUR DESIRE FOR A PROSPEROUS AND HIGH-QUALITY CIVILIZATION WITH OUR DESIRE TO PRESERVE A HEALTHY AND BEAUTIFUL ENVIRONMENT?

IN SUM, THERE ARE FAIRLY SERIOUS ISSUES WITH LEOPOLD S LAND ETHIC AS FORMULATED IN A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC. THEREFORE . . . WHAT? SCRAP THE LAND ETHIC ENTIRELY?? CLARIFY AND MODIFY THE LAND ETHIC IN WAYS THAT HELP TO SHORE IT UP? BASSHAM SUGGESTS HERE AND THEN MORE FULLY IN CHAPTER 7 THAT WE ATTEMPT THE LATTER.

BASSHAMS SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODIFIED LAND ETHIC : 1. SCRAP THE SUMMARY MORAL MAXIM AND REPLACE IT WITH A PLURALITY OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES REFLECTIVE OF LEOPOLD S ECOCENTRIC VISION AND PRIORITIES.

BASSHAMS SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODIFIED LAND ETHIC : PLAUSIBLE EXAMPLES OF SUCH PRINCIPLES MIGHT INCLUDE SOME OF THE ECOLOGICAL NORMS EXPRESSED IN THE WIDELY-EMBRACED EARTH CHARTER (2000). EXAMPLES:

BASSHAMS SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODIFIED LAND ETHIC : * RESPECT EARTH AND LIFE IN ALL ITS DIVERSITY. * CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE WITH UNDERSTANDING, COMPASSION, AND LOVE. * PROTECT AND RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF EARTH S ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, WITH SPECIAL CONCERN FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE NATURAL PROCESSES THAT SUSTAIN LIFE.

BASSHAMS MODIFIED LAND ETHIC (CONT D): 2. MAKE CLEAR THAT SUCH PRINCIPLES ARE GENERAL AND ASPIRATIONAL; THAT THEY ARE NOT EXCEPTIONLESS; THAT THEY CAN CONFLICT; AND THAT THEY MUST BE INTERPRETED REASONABLY AND NOT WITH WOODEN LITERALNESS.

BASSHAMS MODIFIED LAND ETHIC (CONT D): 3. CLARIFY THE ROLE THAT SCIENCE PLAYS IN SUPPORTING A MODIFIED LAND ETHIC.

BASSHAMS MODIFIED LAND ETHIC (CONT D): IN PARTICULAR, NOTE THAT WHILE ARGUMENTS FOR A LAND ETHIC CAN BE INFORMED BY WELL-ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS (E.G., THAT ECOSYSTEMS ARE HIGHLY COMPLEX AND INTERDEPENDENT), THOSE CLAIMS MUST BE PART OF A LARGER VALUES-BASED ARGUMENT.

BASSHAMS MODIFIED LAND ETHIC (CONT D): FOR ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FROM BASSHAM ON DEVELOPING A DEFENSIBLE ECOCENTRIC LAND ETHIC, SEE CHAPTER 7.