Aldo Leopold
When god-like Odysseus returned from the wars
in Troy, hę hanged all on one ropc a dozen slave-
girls of his Household w hora Iie suspccted of mis-
behavior during his absence.
This hanging involved no question of propriety.
The girls were property. The disposal of property
was then, as nów, a matter of expediency, not of
right and wrong.
Concepts of right and wrong were not lacking
from Odysseus' Greece: witness the fidelity of his '
wife through the long years before at last his black-
prowed galleys c!ove the wine-dark seas fov home.
The ethical structure of that day covered wives,
but had not yet been extended to human chattels.
During the three thousand years which have since
elapsed, ethical criteria have been extended to
many fields o f conduct, with corresponding
shrinkages in those judged by expediency only.
The Ethical Seąuence
This extension of ethics, so far studied only by
philosophers, is actually a process in ecological
evolution. Its sequences may be described in eco-
logical as well as in philosophical terms. An ethic,
ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in
the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophic-
ally, is a differentiation of social from anti-social
conduct. These arę two definitions of one thing.
The thing has its origin in the tendency of inter-
dependent individuals or groups to evolve modes
of co-operation. The ecologist calls these symbi-
oses. Politics and economics arę adyanced symbi-
oses in which the original free-for-atl competition
has been replaced, in part, by co-operative mech-
anisms with an ethical content,
The complesity of co-operatiye mechanisms has
increased with population density, and with the
cfiiciency of tcols. It was simpler, for example, to
defme the anti-sociai uses.of sticks and stones.in
the days of the mastodons than of bullets and
billboards in the agę of motors.
The first ethics dealt with the relation between
individuals; the Mosaic Decalogue is an esample.
Later accretions dealt with the relation between
the individual and society. The Golden Rule tries
to integrate the individual to society; democracy to
integratc social organization to the individual.
There is as yet no ethic dealing with man's
relation to land and to the animals and plants
which grow upon it. Land, like Odysseus1 slave-
girls, is still property. The land-relation is still
strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obii-
gations.
The r::ter-sion of ethics to this third element in
human cnvironment is, if I read the eridence cor-
rectly, an evolutionary possibility and an ecological
necessity. It is the third step in a seąuence. The
first two have already been taken. Individual
minkers since the days of Ezekiel and Isaiah have
asserted that the despoliation of land is not only
inexpedient but wrong. Society, however, has not
yet affirmed their belief. I regard the present con-

servation moyement as the embryo of such an
affirmation.
An ethic may be regarded as a modę of guidance
for meeting ecological situations so new or intri-
cate, or involving such deferred reactions, that the
path of social expediency is not discernible to the
average individual. Animal instincts arę modes of
guidance for the individual in meeting such situ-
ations. Ethics arę possibly a kind of community
The Community Concept
Ali ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise:
that the individual is a member of a community
of interdependant parts. His instincts prompt him
but his ethics prompt him also to coopcrate (per-
haps in order that there may be a place to compete
for).
The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries
of the community to include soils, waters, plants,
and animals, or collectively: the land.
This sounds simple: do we not already sing our
love for and obli galion to the land of the free and the
home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do
we love? Certainiy not the soil, which we arę send-
ing helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the
waters, which we assume have no function except
to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage.
Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate
whole communities without batting an eye. Cer-
tainly not the animals, of which we have already
extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful
species. A land ethic of course cannot prevent the
alteration, management, and use of these "re-
sources," but it does a f firm their right to cominued
existence, and, at least in spots, their continued
existence in a natural state.
In short a land ethic changes the role of Homo
sapiens from conąueror of the land-commnnity to
plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect
for his fellow-members, and also respect for the
community as such.
In human history, we have learned (I hope) that
the conqueror role is eventua!ly self-defeating.
Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that
the conąueror knows, ex cathedra, just what
makes the community clock tick, and just what
and who is valuable, and what and ,who is worth-
>|ess, in community life. It always turns out that hę
The Land Ethic
knows neither, and this is why his conquests even-
tually defeat themselves.
In the biotic community, a parallel situation
exists. Abraham knew exactly what the land was
for: it was to drip milk and honey into Abraham's
which we regard this assumption is inverse to the
degree of'our education.
The ordinary citizen today assumes that science
knows what makes the community clock tick; the
scientist is eąually surę chat hę does not. Hę knows
that the biotic mechanism is so complex that its
workings may never be fully understood.
That mań is, in fact, only a niember of a biotic
team is shown by an ecological interpretation of
history. Many historical events, hitherto explained
solely in terms of human enterprise, were actually
biotic interactions between people and land. The
characteristics of the land determined the facts
quite as potently as the characteristics of the men
who lived on it.
Consider, for example, the settlement of the
Mississippi valley. In the years following the Revo-
the native Indian, the French and English traders,
and the American settlers. Historians wonder what
would havc happened if the English at Detroit had
thrown a little morę weight into the Indian side of
those tipsy scales which decided the outcorrie of the
colonial migration into the cane-lands of Kentucky.
It is time nów to ponder the fact that the cane-lands,
when subjected to the particular mixture of forces
represented by the cow, plow, fire, and axe of the
pioneer, became bluegrass. What if the plant suc-
ccssion inherent in this dark and. bloody ground •
had, under the impact of these forces, given us
some worthless sedge, shrub, or weed? Would
Boone and Kenton have held out? Would there
have been any overflow into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
and Missouri? Any Louisiana Purchase? Any trans-
continental union of new states? Any Civil War?
tory. We arę commonly told what the human actors
in this drama tried to do, but we arę seldom told thac
their success, or the .łąck of it, hung in large degree
on the reaction of particular soils to the impact of the
particular forces exerted by their occupancy. In the .
case of Kentucky, we do not even know where the
bluegrass came from - whether it is a native species,
or a stowaway from Europę.
Contrast the cane-lands with what hindsight tells
us about the Southwest, where the pioneers were
 Aldo Leopold
eąually brave, resourceful, and persevering. The
impact of occupancy here brought no bluegrass, or
other plant fitted to withstand the bumps arid buf-
fetings of hard use. This region, when grazed by
livestock, reverted through a series of morę and
morę worthless grasses, shrubs, and weeds to a
condition of unstable eąuilibrium. Each recession
of plant types bred erosion; each increment to ero-
sion bred a further recession of plants. The result
today is a progressive and mutual deterioration, not
only of plants and soils, but of the animal commu-
nity subsisting thereon. The early settlers did not
expect this: on the cienegas of New Mexico some
even cut ditches to hasten it. So subtle has been its
progress that few residents of the region arę aware
l
of it. It is ąuite invisible to the tourist who finds this
• I wrecked landscape colorful and charming (as
indeed it is, but ifbears scant resemblance to what
itwasin 1848).
This same landscape was "developed" once
before, but with ąuite different results. The
Pueblo Indians settled the Southwest in pre-
Columbian times, but they happened not to be
eąuipped with rangę livestock. Their civilization
expired, but not because their land expired.
In India, regions devoid of any sod-forming
grass have been settled, apparently without
wrecking the land, by the simple expedient of
carrying the grass to the cow, rather than vice
-yersa. (Was this the result of some deep wisdom,
or was it just good luck? I do not know.)
In short, tha plant succession steered the course
of history; the pioneer simply demonstrated, for
good or ill, what successions inhered in the land. Is
history taught in this spirit? It will be, once the
concept of land as a community really penetrates
our intellectual life.
The Ecoiogical Conscience
Conservation is a state of harmony between men
and land. Despite nearly a century of propaganda,
conservation still proceeds at a snaiPs pace; pro-
grcss stiłl cońsists targely of ietterhead pieties anu
convention oratory. On the back forty we still slip
two steps backward for each forward stride.
The usual answer to this dilemma is "morę
conservation education." No one will debatę this,
but is it certain that only the volume of education
needs stepping up? Is something lacking in the
content as well?
(40)
HHIBHH l ,:.\
It is difficult to give a fair summary of its
content in brief form, but, as I understand it, the
content is substantially this: obey the law, vote
right, join some organizations, and practice what
conservation is profitable on your own land; the
government will do the rest.
Is not this formuła too easy to accomplish
anything worth-while? It defines no right or
wrong, assigns no obligation, calls for no sacrifice,
implies no change in the current philosophy of
values. In respect of land-use, it urges only en-
lightened self-interest. Just how far will such edu-
cation take us? An example will perhaps yield a
partial answer.
By 1930 it had become clear to all except the
ecologically blind that southwestern Wisconsin's
topsoil was slipping seaward. In 1933 the farmers
were told that if they would adopt certain remedial
practices for five years, the public would donate
CCC labor to install them, plus the necessary
machinery and materials. The offer was widely
accepted, but the practices were widely forgotten
when the five-year corttract period was up. The
farmers cnntinued only rhoce practices that yielded
an immediate and visible economic gain for them-
selves.
This led to the idea that maybe farmers wbuld
learn morę ąuickly if they themselves wrote th~ '
rules. Accordingly the Wisconsin'Legislature in
1937 passed the Soil Conśervation District Law.
This said to farmers, in effect: We, the public, will
furnish you free techmcal sernice and loan you spe-
ciaUzed machinery, if you will write your own rules
for land-use. Each county may write its own rules,
and these will have the force of law. Nearly all the
counties promptly organized to accept the prof-
fered help, but after a decade of operation, no
coumy has yet wńtten a single rule. There has be n
yisible progress m. such practices as stripcropping,
pasture renovation, and soil liming, but none in
fencing woodlots against grazing, and none in ex-
cluding plow and cow from steep ^lopes. The
farmers, in short, have selected those remedial
practices which were profitable anyhow, and
igiiored those which were profitable to the com-
. munity, but not clearly profitable to themselves.
When one asks why no rules have been written,
one is told that the community is not yet ready to
support them; education must precede rules. But
the education actually in progress makes no men-
tion of obligations to land over and above those
dictated by self-interest. The net result is that we

havc morę education but less soil, fewcr healthy
\voods, and as many floods as in 1937.
The puzzling aspect of such situations is that
the existcnce of obligations ovcr and abovc
self-interest is taken for.granted in such rural com-
munity enterprises as the betierment of roads,
schools, churches, and baseball teams. Their exist-
ence is not taken for grantcd, nor as yct scriously
discussed, in bettcring the bchavior of the
water that falls on thc land, or in ihc preserving
of the beauty or diversity o*~ thc farm kindscape.
Land-use cthics arę still govcrned wholly uy
cconomic self-intercst, just as social cthics were a
century ago.
To sum up: we asked thc farmer to do what hę
convenicntly could to save his soil, and lic has
done just that, and only that. Thc farmer who
clcars the woods olf a 75 per cent Ł',jpc, turns his
cows into the clearing, ;.iid dumps its rainfall,
rocks, and soil into the community creek, is still
{if otherwise dccent) a respccted mcmber of soci-
ety. If hę puts limc on his fields and plants his
crops on contour, hc is still cntitlcd to all the
privilcges and emoluments of his Soil Consma-
tion District. The District is a beautifut piece of
social macliinery, but it is coughing along on rwo
cylinders becausc we have been too timid, and too
anxióus for quick success, to ti".i ;hc farmer the
truć magnitudc of his obligations. Obligations have
no mcaning without conscicnce, and thc problem
we facc is ihe cstension of the social conscicnce
iroiii pc&plc .o Sa>*>i.
No important change in ethics was evcr
intellectual emphasis, loyalities, affcctions, and
convictions. Thc proof that conservation has not
yct touchtd these foundations of conduct lics in
ihe fact that philosophy and religion havc not yet
heard of it. In our attempt to mąkę conscmtion
casy, we havc madę it trivial.
Substitmes for a Land ILthic
When the logie of history hungcrs for bread and
we hand out a stone, we arę at pains to cxplain how
much thc stone rcsembles bread. I nów describe
somc of thc stones which serve in lieu of a land
ethic.
. One basie \veakness in a conscrvation system
based wholly on economic motivcs is that most
members of thc land community have no cconom'ic
The Land Ethic
value. Wildfiowcrs and songbirds arę examplcs. Of
the 22,000 higher plants and animals native to
Wisconsin, it is doubtful whcther morc than 5
per cent can be sold, fed, eatcn, or otherwise put
to cconomic use. Yet these creatures arc members
of the biotic community, and if (as l believe) its
stability depends on its integrity, they arę entitlcd
When one of these non-cconomic catcgories is
threatcned, and if we happen to love it, we invent
subterfuges to givc it cconomic impcrtance. At the
beginning of the ccntury soiigsird: v. erę supposed
to bc disappearing. Ornithologists jumpcd to thc
rescue with somc distinctly shaky cvidence to
the cffect that insects would eat us up if birds failed
to control them. The evidence had to be economic
ir. order to bcvalid.
It is pifrnful to read these circumlocution<; today.
We have no land ethic vet, but we havc at leasl
drawn nearer thc point of admitting thyt birds
should continue as a mattcr of biotic right, regard-
less of the prcsence or absence of cconomic advan-
tage to us.
A parallcl siiuation c\ists in respcct of predatory
mammals, raptorial birds, and fish-cating birds.
Time was whcn biologists somcwhat ovcr-worked
the cvidence thai thcsc creatures preserve the
!icalth of gr.mc by killing wcaklings, or fhat rhcy
ijontrol rodcnts for the farmer, or that .hey prey
only on 'worthless' spccies. Herc again, thc cvi-
dence had to be economic in order to bc valid. It is
oply ;n reccnt years that >'•" hear the morc honest
argument that predators arc members of the
community, and that no special intercst has
the right to cxtcrminate them for thc sake of
a bcnefit, real or fancied, to itself. Unfortunatcly
this enlightuned view is still in the talk stagc. In
thc ficld thc extermination of predators goes mer-
rily on: witness the impendmg erasurc of ihe
timbcr wolf by fiat of Congress, thc Conscrvation
Burcaus, and many state legislatures.
Somc spccies of trees havc been 'read out of thc
party' by cconomics-minded forestcrs because
they grow too slowly, or havc too Iow a sale value
to pay as timber crops: whitc cedar, lamarack,
cypress, beech, and hemlock arę examples. In
Europę, wherc forestr)' is ccologically morę ad-
vanced, the non-commercial trec species arę rccog-
nized as members of ihe native forest community,
to bc presemd as such, within reason. Morcovcr
some (like beech) have been found to have a
valuable function in buildingup soil fertility. Thc
Aldo Leopold
interdependencc of the forest and its consiituent
tree species, ground flora, and fauna is taken for
grantcd.
Łąck of cconomic value is sometimes a character
nor only of species or groups, but of entire biotic
communities: marshes, bogs, duncs, and 'desens'
arę examples. Our formuła in such. cases is to
refuges, monuments, or parks. The difficulty is
that thesc communities arę usually interspersed
with morę valuablc private Jands; thc govcrnment
cannot possibly own or contral such scattcrcd par-
cels. Tlić net cffect is that we have relegated somc
of them to ultimate extinction ovcr large areas. If
the privatc owncr were ccologically minded, hę
would be proud to bc the custodian of a reasonable
proportion of such arcas, whicli add diversity and
In somc instanccs, the assumcd łąck of profit in
thcse 'waste' arcas has provcd to be wrong, but
only after most of thcm had been done away with.
The prcscnt scramblc to rcflood muskrat marshes
is a casc in point.
There is a clcar tcndency in American conser-
vation to rclegate to government all necessary jobs
that private landowners fail to pcrform. Govcrn-
mcnt owncrship, operation, subsidy, or rcgulation
is nów widclj' prcvalcnt in forcstry, rangc manage-
mcnt, soil and watershcd managcmcnt, park and
wildcrncss conservation, fisheries management,
and migratory bird management, with morę to
comc. Most of this growth in governmcntal conscr-
vation is proper and logical, somc of it is incvitable.
That I imply no disapproval of it is implicit in thc
fact that I have spent most of my life working for it.
Nevcrtheless the ąucstion arises: What is the ultim-
ate magnitudc of thc cnterprisc? Will the tax base
carry its cvcntual ramifications? At what point.will
governmcnt,il • conservation, likc the mastodon,
become handicapped by its own dimensions? The
answer, if there is any, secms to be in a land ethic, or
the private landowner.
Industrial landowncrs and users, especially lum-
bcrmcn and stockmen, arę inclincd to wail long
and loudly about the extension of govcrnment
ownership and regulation to land, but (with
notable cxceptions) they show little disposition to
develop thc only visible alternativc: the voluntary
practice of conservation on their own lands.
When the private landowner is asked to perform
some unprofitable act for the good of the commu-
nity, hę today asscnts only with outstrctchcd palm.
If thc act costs him cash this is fair and proper, but
whcn it costs only foreihoughr, open-mindcdness,
or time, the issue is at least debatablc. The over-
whelming growth of land-use subsidies in rcccnt
ycars must be ascribcd, in large pan, to thc goy-
ernment's own agencies for conscrvation educa-
tion: the land bureaus, thc agricultural colleges,
and the e.\tension scmces. As far as I can dctcct,
no cthical obligation toward land is taught in thesc
. institutions.
To sum up: a system of conservation based
solely on cconomic sclf-intcrcst is hopelcssly lop-
sidcd. It tends to ignore, and thus evcntually to
eliminatc, many clements in thc land community
that łąck commcrcial valuc, but that arc (as far as
we know) cssential to its healthy functioning. It
assumcs, falsely, I think, that the economic parts of
the biotic clock will function without the uneco-
nomic parts. It tends to rclegate to govcrnment
many functions cvcntually too large, too complex,
or too widely dispersed to bc performcd by gov-
ernment.
Ań cthical obligation on the part of the private
owncr is thc only visible remedy for thcse situations.
The Land Pyramid
Ań ethic to supplement and guide the economic
rclation to land presupposes the esistcnce of some
mcntal imagc of land as a biotic mcchanism. We
can be ethical only in relation to something we can
sce, feel, understand, lovc, or otherwise havc faith
cducation is 'thc balancc of naturę.' For rcasons
too lengthy to detail herc, this figurę of speech fails
to describe accurately what little we know about
the land mcchanism. A mucli truer image is the
one employed in ccology: the biotic pyrarnid. I
shall first sketch thc pyramid as a symbol of land,
and later devclop some of its implications in terms
of land-use.
Plants absorb encrgy from the suń. This energy
flows through a circuit callcd the biota, which may
be representcd by a pyramid consisting of layers.
The bottom layer is thc soil. A plant layer rests on
the soil, an insect layer on the plants, a bird and
rodent layer on the insects, and so on up through
various animal groups to the apex layer, which
consists of the larger carnivores.

The species of a laycr arc alike not in wherc they
camc from, or in what thcy look Hkc, but rather in
\vhai they cat. Each successivc laycr dcpcnds on
chosc below it for food and oftcn for olher scrvices,
those above. Procccding upward, each successive
laycr decrcases in numcrical abundancc. Thus, for
cvery carnivore there arę hundreds of his prey,
thousands of thcir prcy, millions of insccts, un-
countablc plants. The pyramidnl form of thc
system reflccts this numerical progression from
apex to basc. Man sharcs an intermediate layer
\vith thc bears, raccoons, and sąuirrels which cat
both meat and vegetablcs.
The lines of dependency for food and other
services arę called food chains. Thus soif-oak-
converied to soil-corn-cow-farmer. Each species,
inctuding ourselvcs, is a link in many chains. The
deer cats a hundred plants other rhan oak, and thc
cow a hundred plants other than corn. Both, then,
langle of chains so complex as to secm.disordcrly,
yetthestabilityof t hę system proves i t tobeahighly
organizcd structurc. Its functioning depends on
the co-operatibn and compctition of its divcrsc
parts.
In thc bcginning, thc pyramid of life was Iow
and sąuat; the food chains short and simplc. Evo-
lution has added layer after layer, link after link.
Man is one of thousands of accrctions to thc height
us many doubts, but it has givcn us at least one
certainty: thc trend of evolulion is to elaboratc and
diversify the biota.
Land, then, is not mercly soil; it is n foumain of
energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants,
and animals. Food chains arę thc livjng channels
which conduct encrgy upward; denth and decay
return it to thc soil. The circuit is not closcd; some
cnergy is dissipated in dccay, some is added by
absorption from the air, some is storcd m soils,
pcats, and long-lived forests; but it is a sustained
circuit, like a slowly augmentcd rcvolving fund of
life. There is always a net loss by downhill wasłr,
but this is normally smali and offset by thc decay
of rocks. It is depositcd in the ocean and, in thc
course of geological timc, raiscd to form ncw lands
and new pyramids.
i The Yelocity and character of thc upward flow
j. pf energy depend on the complex structure of thc
£ plant and animal community, much as thc upward
The Land Etnie
flow of sap in a trec depends on its complej;
ccllular organization. Without this complcxity,
normal circulation would prcsumably not occur.
Structure rneans thc characteristic numbcrs, ns
\vell as the characteristic kinds and functions, of
the component species. This interdcpendcnce be-
tween the cornplcx structure of the land and its
smooth functioning as an energy unii is one of its
basie attributcs.
When a changc occurs in one part of the circuit,
many other parts must adjust thcmsclves to it.
Change does not nccessarily obstruct or divcrt
thc flow of cnergy; evolution is a long series of
sclf-induccd changes, the net result of which has
been to elaborate the flow mechanism and to
lengthen the circuit. Evolutionary changes, how-
cvcr, arę usually slow and local. Man's invention of
tools has cnabled him to mąkę changes of unpre-
cedented violcnce, rapidiry, and scope.
One change is in the composition of floras and
faunas. Thc largcr predators arę lopped off thc
apex of thc pyramid; food chains, for the first
time in history, become shorter rather than longcr.
Domesticated species from other lands arę substi-
tuted for wild oncs, and wild ones arc rnovcd to
new hahitats. In this \vorld-widc pooling of faunas
and floras, some species get out ofbounds as pests
and diseascs, othcrs arę cxtinguished. Such cffects
arę scldom intcnded, or forcseen; .they represent
unprcdictcd and oftcn untraceable rcadjustmcńtś
in thc structurc. Agricultural scicncc is largely a
race between thc cmergcncc of ncw pcsts and thc
emergcnce of new techniąucs for their control.
Another changc touchcs the flow of energy
through plants and animals and its return to the -
soil. Fertility is thc ability of soil to rcceivc, storę,
1
and rclease cnerg) . Agriculture, by overdTafts on
thc soil, or by too radical a suhstitution of domestic
for native species in the superstructurc, may de-
rangc thc channels of flow or deplete storage. Soils
depleted of thcir storage, or of thc organie matter
which anchors it, wash away faster than they form.
Waters, like soil, arc part of the cnergy circuit.
Industry, by polluting \vaters or obstructing them
\vith dams, may excludc the plants and animals
nccessary to Vccp energy in circulatipn.
Transportation brings about another basie
changc: the plants or animals grown in one region
arc no\v consumcd and returncd to thc soil in
another. Transportation taps the energy stored in
rocks, and in the air, and uses it elscwhcre; thus we
fertilize the garden with nitrogen gleancd by tlić
guano birds from the fishes of seas on the other
side of the Eąuator. Thus the formcrly localized
and self-contained circuits arę pooled on a world-
widc scalę.
The proccss of altering the pyramid for humań
occupation rcleases stored encrgy, and this often
gives rise, during the pioneering period, to a de-
ceptive exuberancc of plant and animal lifc, both
wild and tamę. Thesc releascs of biotic capital tend
to becloud or postponc the pcnalties of violencc.
This thumbnail skctch of land as an cncrgy
cireuit conveys three basie ideas:
(1) That land is not merely soil.
(2) That the nativc plants and animals kept the
encrgy circuit open; others may or may not.
(3) That man-made changes arc of a diffcrcnt
order than cvolutionary changes, and have
effccts morę eomprehensiye than is intcnded
These ideas, collectively, raise two basie issues:
Can the land adjust itself to the ncw order? Can
the dcsired alterations be accompKshcd with less
yióience?
Biotas seem to differ in thcir capacity to sustain
rioleni conversion. Western Europę, for cxample,
carries a far different pyramid than Caesar found
have bccome mcadows or plow-land; many new
plants and animals arc introduced, some of which
escapc as pcsts; ihc remaining natives arę grcatly
changcd in distribunon and abundancc. Yct the soil
is still Uiere and, with the help of importcd nutri-
ents, still fertile; the watcrs flow normally; the new
structure seems to function and to persist. There is
no visible stoppage or derangemcnt of the circuit.
Western Europę, thcii, has a rcsistant biota. Its
inncr proccsses arc tough, clastic, rcsistant to
strain. No mattcr how violent the alterations, the
pyramid, so far, has dcvcloped some ncw modus
vivendi which prcservcs its habitability for mań,
and for most of the othcr natiyes.
Japan seems to present another instancc of rad-
ical convcrsion without disorganization.
Most other civitizcd regions, and some as yer
barely touchcd by civilization, display various
stages of disorganization, varying from initial
and North Africa diagnosis is confuscd by climatic
changes, which may have been either the cause or
tlić effcct of advanced wastage. In the United
States the degree of disorganization varies locally;
it is worst in the Southwest, the Ozarks, and parts
of the South, and least in New England and the
Northwest. Bertcr land-uscs may still arrest ii in
the less advanced regions. In parts of Mexico,
South America, Soudi Africa, and Australia a vic~
Icnt and accelerating wastage is in progress, but I
cannot assess the prospects.
This almost world-wide display of disorganiza-
animal, cxccpt that it never culminatcs in complete
disorganization or death. The land recovers, but at
some rcduced lcvel of complexity, and with a
reduccd carrying capacity for people, plants, and
animals. Many biotas currently regarded as 'lands
of opportunity' arę in fact alrcady subsisting on
cxploitative agriculture, i.e. they have already
CKceeded thcir sustained carrying capacity. Most
of South America is overpopulated in this sense.
In arid regions we attempt to offset the process
of wastage by rcclamation, but it is only too evi-
dent that the prospectivc longcvity of reclamation
projccts is often short. In our own West, the bcst
of them may not !ast a century.
The combincd cvidcnce of history and ccology
sccrns to support one generał dcduction: the less
violent the mnnmade changes, ihc greatcr the prob-
ability of succcssful rcadjustment in the pyramid.
Yiolence, in tum, varics with human population
density; a dense population reąuires a morę violent
convcrsion. In this respcct, North America has a
bettcr chancc for permanence than Europę, if shc
can contrive to limit licr density.
This dcduction runs coimtcr to our current
philosophy which assumcs that because a smali
indefinite increase will enrich it indefinitely. Ecol-
ogy knows of no density relationship that holds for
indefmitely wide limiis. Al! gains from density arę
subject to a law of diminishing returns.
Whatcvcr may be the cąuation for men and land,
it is improbnble that we as yet know all its tcrms.
Recent discovcries in minerał and \
reveal unsuspected depcndencics i up-circuit:
incrcdibly minutę quantities of ce substanccs
determine the value of soils to pla , of plants to
animals. What of the down-circuit What of the
vanishing specics, ihc prescrvation of which we
nów regard as an esthctic Iuxury? Thcy helpcd
build the soil; in what unsuspected ways may they
be esscntial to its maintenancc? Profcssor Wcavcr

proposes that we use prairie flowers 10 reflocculate
thc wasting soils of the dust bowl; who knows for
what purpose crancs and condors, otters and
grizzlies may somc day be used?
Land Health and the A-B Cleavage
A land cthic, then, reflects the esistence of an
ecological conscicnce, and this in tum rcflccts a
convicrion of individual responsibility for the
health of the land. Health \s the capacity of the
land for self-rencwal. Conscrvation is our effort to
understand and prcserve this capacity.
Conscrvationists arę notorious for thcir dissen-
sions/Superficially thesc secm to add up to mcrc
oinfusion, but a morę careful scrutiny reveals a
single pianę of cleavagc common to tnany spccial-
izcd fields. In each field one group (A) regards thc
land as soil, and its function as commodity-pro-
duction; another group (B) rcgards thc land as a
biota, and its function as something broader. How
much broader is admittcdly in a state of doubt and
confusion.
In my own field, forestry, group A is ąuitc
content to grow irces like cabbages, with cellulose
as the basie forcst commodity. Ir feels no inhib-
ition against violencc; its idcology is agronomie.
Group B, on the othcr hand, secs forestry as fun-
damentally different from agronomy because it
employs naiural spccics, and manages a natural
principle. It worrics on biocic as \vell as economic
grounds about the loss of species likc chestnut, and
the thrcatencd loss of the whitc pincs. It worries
about a whole series of sccondary forest functions:
wildlife, recrcation; watcrshcds, wildcrness arcas.
To my mind, Group B fccls the stlrrings of.an
ecological consciencc.
In thc wildlife field, a parallel cleavagc exists. For
Group A thc basie commodities arę sport and meat;
the yardsticks of production arc ciphers of take in
pheasamsandtrout.Artificialpropagationisaccept-;
able as a pcrrnanent as \vcll as a temporary rccourse -
if its unit costs pcrmit. Group B, on thc othcr hand,
worrics about a wholc series of biotic side-issucs.
What is the cost in prcdators of producing a gamę
crop? Should we have furthcr recourse to exotics?
How can managcment restorc the shrinking species,
likc prairie grousc, already hopeless as shootable
• gamę? How can managcment restore the threatened
The Land Ethic
raritics, likc trumpetcr swan and whooping crane?
Can managcment principlcs bc extcndcd to wild-
flowers? Herę agaln it is clear to me that we have the
same A-B,cleavage as in forestry.
In the larger field of agriculture I am less com-
petcnt to speak, but thcre seem to be somcwhat
parallel cleavages. Scientific agriculture was ac-
tively developing before ecolog>- was born, hence
a slower pcnetration of ccologica! conccpts might
be expected. Moreovcr the farmer, by the very
naturę of his tcchniques, must modify thc biota
morę radically than the foresler or the wildlife
manager. Nevertheless, there arc many discontents
in agriculture which 'seem to add up to a new
vision of 'biotic farming.1
Pcrhaps the most important of thcse is thc ncw
cvidence that poundage or tonnagc is no measure
of the food-value of farm crops; the products of
fertile soil may be qualitativcly as wcll as quantita-
tivcly superior. We can bolster poundage from
dcplctcd soils by pouring on importcd fcrtility,
bm we arę not necessarily bolstering food-value.
The possiblc ultimate ramifications of this idea arę
so immense rhat I must lcavc thcir exposition to
abler pens.
Thc discontent that labcls itself 'organie
farming,' while bearing somc of thc earmarks of a
cult, is ncyertheless biotic in its direction, particu-
larly in its insistence on thc imporlance of soil flora
and fauna.
The ccological fundamcntals of agriculture arc
just as poorly known to ihc public as in othcr fields
of land-use. For examplc, fcw'cducated people
realizc that thc mar v cło us advanc.cs i n tcchniąue
madę during rccent decadcs arc improvcmcnts in -
the pump, rather than thc wcll. Acrc for acre, thcy
have barcly sufficed to offset thc sinking level of
fertility.
In all of thcse cleavagcs, we sec repcated the
same basie paradoxcs: mań thc conąueror wrsus
mań the biotic citizen; scicncc the sharpener of his
sword versns sciencc thc scarch-light on his uni-
vcrse; land the slave and servant remis land the
collective organism. Robinson's injunction to
Tristram may wcll hę appliecl, at this juncture, to
Homo saptfiii as a species in gcological dmę:
Whether you will or not
You arę a King, Tristram, for you arę one
Of the timc-tested fcw that leave the world,
Whcn thcy arę gone, not the same place it was.
Mark what you lcavc.

The Outlook
It is inconceivable to me chat an cthical rclation to
land can exist without lovc, rcspcct, and admir-
ation for land, and a high rcgard for its value. By
merę economic value; I mean valuc in thc philo-
sophical sensc.
Pcrhaps the most serious obstacle impcding the
cvolution of a land cthic is the fact rhat our cduca-
tional and economic system is hcadcd away from,
land. Your truć modern is scparated from the
land by many middlemcn, and by innumcrable
physical gadgets. Hę had no vi tal relation to it; to
him it is the space bctween cities on which crops
grow. Turn him loosc for a day on the land, and if
the spot does not happen to be a golf links or a
'scenie' area, hę is borcd stiff. If crops could be
raised by hydroponics instead of farming, it would
suit him very well. Synthetic substitutes for wood,
leather, wool, and other natura! land products suit
him better than the originals. In short, land is
something lic has 'outgrown.'
Almost cąually serious as an obstacle to a land
cthic is the attitudc of thc farmer for whom the
land is still an adversary, or a taskmastcr that keeps
him in slavery. Thcorctically, thc mcchanization of
farming ought to nit the farmcr's chains, but
whethcr it rcally does is debatable.
One of the requis!tes for an ccological compre-
hension of land is an undcrstnndingofccology, and
this is by no mcans co-extcnsivc with 'education'; in
fact, much higher education seems delibcrately to
avoid ecological concepts. An understanding of
ccology does not neccssarily originatc in courses
bearing ecological labcls; it is ąuite as likely to be
labeled gcograpliy, botany, agronomy, history, or
cconomics. This is as it should bc, but \vhatcver thc
label, ecological training is scarcc.
The casc for a land ethic would appcar hopeless
but for the minority which is in obvious rcvolt
against these 'modern 1 trends.
The 'kcy-log' which must be moved to releasc
thc evolutionary process for an cthic is simply this:
quit thinking about decent land-use as solely an
economic problem. Examine cach ąucstion in
tcrms of what is ethically and csthetically right,
as well as what is economically expedient. A thing
is right whcn it tcnds to prcserve thc intcgrity,
stability, and bcauty of thc biotic community. It is
wrong wlien it tends othcrwisc.
It of course gocs without saying that economic
feasibility limits the tcther of what can or cannot
be donc for land. It always has and it always will.
The fallacy the economic detcrminists have tied
around our collective neck, and which we nów
need to cast off, is the belief that economics detcr-
mines all landuse. This is simply not true. An
innumcrable host of actions and attitudes, com-
prising pcrhaps the bulk of all land rdations, is
determined by the land-users' tastcs and prcdilcc-
tions, rathcr than by his purse. Thc bulk of a!l land
rclations hinges on invc5tments of time, forc-
thought, skill, and fflith rather than on invesimcnts
of cash. As a land-uscr thinketh, so is hę.
I havc purposcly prcscntcd the land utnie as a
product of social cYolution because nothing so
important as an ethic is ever 'written.' Only the
most supcrficial student of history supposes that
Moses 'wrote' the Decalogue; it 'evolvcd in the
say tcntativc because cvolution never stops.
The cvolution of a land ethic is an intcllcc-
tual as wcll as emorional process. Conservation is
paved with good intentions which prove to be
futile, or even dangerous, because they arę devóid
of critical understanding cither of thc land, or of
economic land-use. I think it is a truisrn that as
the ethical frontier advances from thc indiv-
idual to the community, its intellectuaf contcnt
incrcases.
The mechanism of operation is thc same for any
ethic: social approbation for right actions: social
disapproval for wrong actions.
By and largc, our prescnt problem is one of
attitudes and implcmcnts. We arę remodeling the
Alhambra with a steamshovel, and we arę proud of
our yardage. We shall hardly rclinquish the shovel,
which after all has many good points, but we arę in
need of gentlcr and morę objective criteria for its
successful use.