Code of Conduct for Community Collaboration

Samuel Strong
Biol-1120-400

There is much to be learned from the wonderful reading known to the world as The
Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold. Leopold makes some very interesting points throughout the
article. There are a few that stand out more than others. The first point Leopold seems to really
take the time to preach about is what exactly makes up a community. A second point that is
emphasized is having an economic view on conservation. One final point to be discussed in this
sermon, is about how man-made changes affect the environment.
In looking at Leopolds thoughts to what makes up a community, it seems he is making a
negative critique of the human race. Bluntly stated, land is not merely soil. The reader learns
that the community consists of more than just humans and their neighbors, but rather a
community includes their lawns, gardens, pets, etc. and that each of these animals or plants also
constitutes an individual in the community. Each individual must contend for a spot in the
community, but at the same time those with the ability to reason must consider how other
individuals bless them and help them to survive in such a community. These reasons are why a
Land Ethic is needed to help keep the newly found, weaker individuals from going extinct in a
community or worldwide.
Similarly, economic views regarding conservation, can be very detrimental to those
individuals that were before considered lifeless. Many of the weaker individuals have little or no
monetary value, and to those seeking only for riches, they become rubbish. This presents a
threat to the very existence of such individuals of being eradicated and replaced by something
that carries a little more weight, at least in the eyes of men. However those seemingly worthless
entities work to keep the energy circuits open and flowing, while others may provide more
money up front. A balance must be maintained or else the system will shut down and cause


more problems. In the end Leopold just throws the dagger out there that solely economic
conservation systems are hopelessly lopsided, and in essence wont work. And I agree with him.
Not the least, but one of the last ideas is in regard to the effect of man-made changes on
the environment. Leopold believes that man-made changes are far bigger than can be seen.
What is thought to be understood about the changes being made is merely a sliver of what could
happen, and could be completely different than what may happen. I believe the statement by
Leopold (1945, p. 220) the less violent the man-made changes the greater the probability of
successful readjustment is true and can be seen in many instances in history. One example
stems from the arrival of the Franciscan Friars arrived in New Mexico. As they began to spread
the Catholic beliefs to the Native Americans it appeared to be going well, but once the Friars saw
that the natives werent fully accepting their Religion they began to be more violent and began to
beat and jail the natives. In response the natives attacked the Friars and eventually kicked them
out of their land. If the Friars had simply kept to peaceful transitions, they more than likely
would have had better results.
Careful thought about this article causes the reader to wonder or consider what their own
views on conservation are. In this case my own views on conservation are more balanced, than
one sided. The individuals in a community are for the use and benefit of those who need it.
However, the usage should not leave a hole. Other people should not be obviously aware of the
use unless they see replacement as a clue. Always leave no trace, as the Boy Scouts of America
program taught me as I was growing up. Leave no trace but also be able to survive using what is
around them.
Given these thoughts, man must see himself as an equal member of the community not as
the king. This is where those economic views are questioned. When money and gain are all man


wants out of the community, then he feels that he can do whatever to make that happen, even if
those actions are harmful. There is a saying that comes to mind, take care of the earth and it
will take care of you. Not to say mother earth will attack those that harm her, but rather the
effects of the choices made will come back to haunt those making them.
One example comes to mind from the country of Ghana in western Africa where I lived
for two years. There is a man named George Bamford, whom I had the opportunity to meet
during my stay. George takes care of the land surrounding Lake Volta, making sure that there
are enough trees around the lake to prevent erosion and keep substances from falling into the
lake. The villagers in the areas around the lake like to cut the trees down for firewood. When
this happens, George is responsible for making sure that the tree is replaced with a sapling, and
that future cutting is prevented. While one tree may not make a difference, what the villagers
fail to see is that if all the trees are removed, more stuff will fall into the lake and the water levels
will rise, flooding the surrounding villages and polluting the water. The effects cannot be seen
by all, but those who can perceive them must do what they can to prevent the damage.
So from this example, we can see that today the land-relation is still very economic. The
aforementioned villagers were out for gain. Whether it was to gain firewood, or sell the wood for
money, it was only in thought of themselves. The villagers had no intention of replacing those
trees. They only wanted what they would get out of cutting them down. In many minds the
thought is that someone else will clean up the mess. In the Ghana incident, George is there to do
that, but there isnt somebody there in every instance. This needs to change. There is no need to
void the population of the privileges that come from the resources of the land, but everyone
needs to be more responsible and to take accountability for their actions. Man naturally wants to
be on top, to be king, but as Uncle Ben said to his nephew Peter Parker, With great power


comes great responsibility
1
. That is a concept that is widely missed, but that needs to be
incorporated into conservation.
Earlier it was discussed that everything in a community is an individual, which plays a
role to help the whole function. This brings about much thought reagarding how those who have
the ability to take action, are using or treating other members who do not have the ability to take
action for themselves. It is often observed that man removes one member of the original
community and replaces it with another. It is like removing fertile soil and plants to build a road,
only to abuse what was chosen to replace the original. Damaging the road which was built or
just not taking care of it in general, is a mockery of what could have been.
As Leopold remarked A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to otherwise. I believe the above
example is definitely wrong, but that doesnt mean it is wrong in every instance or that
everybody agrees. Using the same example, if the road was well maintained so that it doesnt
cause further problems, then even though it is less beautiful and could affect the integrity of the
community (if not well maintained) it is right for the needs of the members of the community. In
other instances, a well maintained road put in the wrong place, threatening the life and well-
being of the individuals of that community, is wrong. The way to a great system of conservation
is to not act like a pendulum and swing completely to one side or the other. Instead both must be
viewed, and practiced.
The next question that readers must ask themselves is beauty or duty? As stated before
one is not without the other. Both views must be considered. Nevertheless, given the current
circumstances, I personally feel that beauty has a heavier pull than duty. Due to the loss of much
the natural beauty of the earth, what is left must be preserved. An example of this is the


Buckhorn Wash Rock Art Site, in Emery County, Utah. That beautiful art was left to tell the
legacy of those who made it. Sadly much vandalism has occurred to the art and site, although
cleaned up and restored, the site is not what it once was. There is no gain, in this circumstance
only loss. Beauty must be a major focus when it comes to conservation, but it cant drown out
the importance of duty as well.
When creating a land ethic, it is important to keep a balance. One cannot go to either
extreme of either a selfish ethic or a completely selfless ethic. A selfish ethic would most likely
end up like the economic ethics discussed earlier, lopsided and broken. On the other hand
however, a completely selfless ethic would cause the individual to be unhappy with their
environment. In the morals and opinion presented in my own ethic, I tend to lean more towards
the interest of non-human elements. This is due to the fact that so little is actually remaining in
terms of different individuals. The human race has played the role of greatest importance for far
too long. Everybody needs to step up and realize just what is going on in the world. Not to say
that a complete back off is necessary because that would also have catastrophic consequences.
There needs to be a greater sense for the unseen value of individuals previously considered
useless. Through this much more of the environment would be conserved and preserved.
Leopolds Land Ethic is a very eye opening article. It helps people to understand what is
actually happening when environmental and communal decisions are made. It offers many
different solutions to problems and suggestions for future procedures. Leopold does a wonderful
job in not attacking so much but rather encouraging and presenting supportive ideas. With that
being said, Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic is something that I feel should be read by all, but
especially by those who would understand and take action. To the wrong mind it might only
instill bitterness and anger leading to more problems in this area.


There are some particular sections of the article to which readers should pay particular
attention. One is titled The Community Concept. In particular there is a very inspiring clause
that brings to the reader cause for great reflection. Also any reader should pay close attention
when economic ethics or self-interest is being discussed in the article, due to the fact that the
world still stands on that type of view today. No section should be ruled out however, what
appeals to one may not to another, in essence one mans trash is another mans treasure. Each
reader has to choose what they like. If one reader does not read a particular section due to
criticism by a previous reader on that section, then the current reader may not learn what they
need to from the Land Ethic.
As good and informative as the article was, that does not necessitate an immediate
change of mind to the reader. If every reader of the Land Ethic changed opinions upon reading
of the Ethic, then how easy would it be to change them back with a counter article, thus ending
with zero results. Careful thought should be taken to the points presented in contrast to ones
current views. Afterwards a self-evaluation should be made to see what could be changed and
what should remain. This is not a one-time event, but a step by step process through which the
views and opinions of the world will slowly change for the better. Even though it will be slow, it
is as Leopold (1949, p. 207) said conservation still proceeds at a snails pace, and that is how it
should be. Conservation is not something that can be rushed. When it is, that is when mistakes
are made. Even when the thought is to better a community or environment, more damage will be
done than protection.



References
1. Sam Raimi (Director), Laura Ziskin (Producer), Alvin Sargent (Writer) (2002). Spider-Man
[DVD]. United States: Sony Pictures.