1

Madison Lindsay

A State of Harmony

In my recent reading of Aldo Leopolds The Land Ethic from A Sand County
Almanac, With Essays on Conservation From Round River, I was cultured and edified by many
things the author wrote.
My biggest takeaway from this reading was thinking about the monetary value of land, or
really the lack thereof. When I think of the word land I think about the wide open range, filled
with brush and roughage and maybe a few animals scampering around. Leopold specifies land
collectively as soils, waters, plants, and animals. With that in mind and thinking about the
monetary value of land, I realized that land is so much more than what I had originally thought;
its essentially everything.
Leopold described how there have been many failed attempts throughout history to
preserve land, and one of the biggest reasons why is that theres no monetary value of the land.
Farmers may plow over swamplands or deplete water well resources, but it seems like thats for a
legitimate reason, which is to grow and sell food that everyone needs to survive. The plants that
grew in those swamplands and the birds that flourished there also have a right to survive, but this
is often overlooked because you cant definitively assign a cost to a species of birds survival. It
was a deep concept I had never thought of before, but makes complete sense as to why the land
is continuously diminished for mans use and personal gain. There isnt a measurable personal or
monetary gain from saving a species.

2
Another main point from Leopold was mans relationship with the land in general. Its
basically exploited for what humans want to do with it, not to be confused with what humans
need from it. I think if we were talking solely about human needs, we would have a much
stronger appreciation, respect and care toward our land.
The fact that there is no solid, collaborative or widely accepted ethic of how land
should be treated is quite appalling to me. Everyone thinks its someone elses problem to deal
with. But its not a problem to be dealt with, its our life force, and we should all have a hand in
preserving it. The land ethic reverses the role of humans and land from being on a dominant
conquest for exploiting resources, to being a member of and respectively living in conjunction
with it.
I have a strong conservation philosophy that people should live within their means;
people should be conservative with their resources, and not be wasteful. Im the biggest fan of
recycling, even when its not convenient which seems to be how most people view recycling.
For example, I saved up my used Brita filters over the course of a year and paid $12 to ship them
back to the manufacturer so they could be recycled and refurbished. I think its our duty to
responsibly consume and dispose of what we use.
My conservation philosophy also ties into the statement, A land ethic changes the role of
humans from conqueror of the land community to plain members and citizens of it. It implies
respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such. As humans we live
with the land, we arent conquerors of it. To support this statement, lets use plastic bottles for
example. I dont believe in wasting plastic bottles; vast amounts of energy, resources and
pollution go into producing them. I buy Brita filters to drink tap water, and I keep my reusable
water bottle with me at all times. This is a small and insignificant point in contrast to the massive

3
problems facing our biotic community, but when considering the millions of people who dont
practice this, it goes to show how humans view their convenience to be more important than
preservation of land. This proves humans have a land ethic of being conquerors of land and not
living in respectively with it.
In the 1940s Leopold wrote, The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing
privileges but not obligations. Even today this quote is proven to be sadly true. People think its
their privilege to destroy lands, make bigger houses, pollute the air and water resources, all for
their personal and economic gain. Unfortunately, the general senses of my friends and family is,
Who cares? Ill be dead before its a big problem. What an awful thing to say! It does seem
that with such a short lifespan of around 80 years, people think the land is at their disposal.
The land ethic extends sensibilities to all members of the community, human and
nonhuman. In my life and community, this means preserving everything the whole land consists
of, including the soil where houses are being unsafely built upon in North Salt Lake, to the water
running from streams into irrigation channels, and all of the plants being plowed over further and
further East up the Bountiful mountains for monstrous and lavish homes. All of these examples
have life that relies on the land for survival.
Leopold states, 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. I agree with this passage,
as its a simple and elegant way to state our land should be preserved and not taken for granted.
Its approaching a more definitive way to create a land ethic, because anyone could ask him or
herself, Am I preserving the integrity and beauty of the land? If the answer is no, then what
theyre doing is wrong. This doesnt mean preserving the land takes precedence over humans

4
reliance on the land for survival, but there should be a contrasting balance between the two
where one doesnt supersede the other.
Its difficult for me to choose whether aesthetics or ethics takes priority for determining
an ethical relationship with land. The sole reason I enjoy camping, hiking and biking is to be in
the presence of such beauty in nature. I feel I ultimately have to state ethics give my highest
regard for the lands value, because without them I wouldnt be able to survive. Despite how
beautiful the land may be, I need to live off it. This is why Leopold has such a valid point for the
need of humans to be fellow-members with the land. I concur with Leopolds statement when he
writes, It is inconceivable to me that an ethical relationship can exist without love, respect,
admiration, and a high regard for its value.
When I reflect upon my land ethic, I believe a combination of self-interest and an interest
in non-human elements builds my foundation. As just stated, my relationship of the land has a
large reliance on duty, which does seem to be more self-interest, but I also believe humans
should have a balance with the land, which also gives a true interest in non-human elements.
Reading The Land Ethic resonated with me because it made me think more deeply
about everyday things taken for granted. It has changed my way of thinking because I had never
given consideration to the true value of preserving nature. A forest has much more to its value
than just the dollar amount it may be sold for, or the cost of goods generated from the sale of its
exploitation of resources.
After reading this piece, it generated many thoughts hopelessness. With an everexpanding population in the world and so much destruction of land taking place, it feels Im
insignificant with any actions I take to preserve my biotic community. However, after more
thought my discouragement turned into empowerment, because one person truly can make a

5
difference. Clearly Leopold himself made a dramatic difference by writing this piece and
encouraging others to establish what our land ethics should be.
I would absolutely recommend The Land Ethic for others to read, as it gives an
altruistic feeling to think more deeply about something that is so much bigger than you as an
individual; its quite humbling. Conservation is a state of harmony between man and land.