Read Instructions

    Closely read the text provided and write a source-based argument on the topic below. Use two additional
    outside texts that you determine to be both credible and relevant to the topic.
    Topic: Throughout history we have tried to conquer the wilderness, tame the jungles, and master the
    elements, and we are still trying to conquer space. But are nature and humankind necessarily in conflict?
    We created civilization to protect us from the undesirable features of the outdoors and, to some degree,
    from harm. But now our experience of the natural world is so mediated that many of us know it only as it
    is presented on television or online. Has our rela- tionship with nature changed so drastically that nature
    now exists within civilization, as contemporary naturalist Bill McKibben suggests? Do we now contain
    nature rather than being contained by it? How does our perspective on Ralph Waldo Emersons classic
    essay Nature change now that nature is threatened? Can we balance human progress and economic
    well-being with environmental protection?
    In recent years, humankinds attitude toward the natural world has changed. Before Rachel Carson and
    others began to alert us to the dangers of pollution, most people simply didnt think about the
    environment. And looking back over the last half century, it is hard to imagine what may be in store for us
    over the next fifty years. Are we yet to see the consequences of what we have already done to alter the
    Question: What is our responsibility to the natural environment?
    Your Task: Carefully read the text provided. Then, using evidence from that text, plus two credible
    pieces of research you gather on your own, write a well-developed argument regarding our responsibility
    to the natural environment. Clearly establish your claim, distinguish it from alternate or opposing claims,
    and use specific, relevant, and sufficient evidence from these three texts to develop your argument. Do not
    simply summarize each text.
    Guidelines: Be sure to:
    Establish your claim regarding our responsibility to the natural environment.
    Distinguish your claim from alternate or opposing claims.
    Use specific, relevant, and sufficient evidence from at least three of the texts to develop your
    Develop claim(s) and counterclaim(s) thoroughly and in a balanced manner, supplying the most
    relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both, anticipating
    the audiences knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases.
    Express the appropriate complexity of the topic.
    Identify each source that you reference, and use MLA guidelines for in-text citations and a works
    cited page at the end of the essay.
    Organize your ideas in a cohesive and coherent manner.
    Maintain a formal style of writing.
    Follow the conventions of standard written English.


    Brooklyn Technical High School David Newman, Principal Jess Rhoades Bonilla, AP English
    29 Fort Greene Place Brooklyn, New York 11217 Telephone: (718) 804 – 6400 Fax: (718) 804 – 6535
    Text: The Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold on page 906 of The Language of Composition, 2nd Edition
    A guide for assessing the credibility of online sources:
    Who is the speaker? What is their authority, credibility, experience, or bias? Do they have an
    advanced degree, institutional affiliation, or other qualifications that make them an authority on
    the topic?
    What information is being delivered and is it relevant and accurate? Can you verify its accuracy
    by confirming it with a primary source or multiple secondary sources? Does the piece cite its
    Where was the piece published? What is the credibility of the publication or web site that is
    delivering the information?
    When was the piece published? Is it current and therefore relevant to the topic at hand, or is the
    information out of date? If there is no timestamp, copyright date, or date of publication, thats a
    bad sign.
    Why is the piece being published? Whats the intended purpose of the piece? To persuade,
    inform, analyze, or something else?
    How is the piece written? What tone does the writer use? Does the piece seem professional,
    formal, academic, or is the writer biased, exaggerated, inflammatory, or overly informal in their
    writing style?
    MLA General Format
    MLA In-Text Citations
    MLA Works Cited Page Formatting
    MLA Sample Works Cited Page

    Standards Addressed:
    11-12W1: Write arguments to support claims that analyze substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
    11-12W1a: Introduce precise claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from counterclaim(s), and create an
    organization that logically sequences claims, counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
    11-12W1b: Develop claim(s) and counterclaim(s) thoroughly and in a balanced manner, supplying the most relevant evidence for each while
    pointing out the strengths and limitations of both, anticipating the audiences knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases. 11-12W1c:
    Use precise language, content-specific vocabulary and literary techniques to express the appropriate complexity of the topic.
    11-12W1d: Use appropriate and varied transitions, as well as varied syntax, to make critical connections, create cohesion, and clarify the
    relationships among complex ideas and concepts. 11-12W1e: Provide a concluding statement or section that explains the significance of the
    argument presented.
    11-12W1f: Maintain a style and tone appropriate to the writing task.
    11-12W6: Conduct research through self-generated question, or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate. Synthesize
    multiple sources, demonstrating understanding and analysis of the subject under investigation.
    11-12W7: Gather relevant information from multiple sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each
    source in terms of the task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas; avoid plagiarism,
    overreliance on one source, and follow a standard format for citation.
    11-12W6: Conduct research through self-generated question, or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate. Synthesize
    multiple sources, demonstrating understanding and analysis of the subject under investigation.
    11-12W7: Gather relevant information from multiple sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the strengths and limitations of each
    source in terms of the task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas; avoid plagiarism,
    overreliance on one source, and follow a standard format for citation.

    from The Land Ethic
    Aldo Leopold
    Aldo Leopold was born in Iowa in 1887. He attended the Sheffield Scientific School
    at Yale and subsequently enrolled in the Yale forestry school, the first graduate
    school of forestry in the United States. Graduating with a masters degree in 1909,
    he joined the U.S. Forest Service and stayed with that agency in various research
    and management positions until 1933, when he took a position at the University
    of Wisconsin. Throughout his life, Leopold was at the forefront of the conservation
    movement; many people acknowledge him as the father of wildlife conservation in
    America. He was also an internationally respected scientist who wrote over 350
    articles, mostly on scientific and policy matters. In addition, he was an advisor on

    conservation to the United Nations. He died of a heart attack in 1948 while fight-
    ing a fire on a neighbors farm. Leopold is best known for his book A Sand County

    Almanac (1949), which includes the chapter excerpted here, The Land Ethic.
    When god- like Odysseus returned from the wars in Troy, he hanged all
    on one rope a dozen slave- girls of his household whom he suspected
    of misbehavior during his absence.
    This hanging involved no question of propriety. The girls were property. The
    disposal of property was then, as now, a matter of expediency, not of right and

    Concepts of right and wrong were not lacking from Odysseus Greece: wit-
    ness the fidelity of his wife through the long years before at last his black- prowed

    galleys clove the wine- dark seas for home. The ethical structure of that day cov-
    ered 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 of conduct, with corresponding shrinkages in those judged by expe-
    diency only.

    The Ethical Sequence
    This extension of ethics, so far studied only by philosophers, is actually a process
    in ecological evolution. Its sequences may be described in ecological as well as in
    philosophical terms. An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in
    the struggle for exis tence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social
    from anti- social conduct. These are two definitions of one thing. The thing has its
    origin in the tendency of interdependent individuals or groups to evolve modes
    of co- operation. The ecologist calls these symbioses. Politics and economics are
    advanced symbioses in which the original free- for- all competition has been
    replaced, in part, by co- operative mechanisms with an ethical content.

    12_SHE_67650_&K12_887_1004.indd 906 6/18/12 3:13 PM

    The complexity of co- operative mechanisms has increased with population
    density, and with the efficiency of tools. It was simpler, for example, to define the
    anti- social uses of sticks and stones in the days of the mastodons than of bullets
    and billboards in the age of motors.

    The first ethics dealt with the relation between individuals; the Mosaic Deca-

    is an example. Later accretions dealt with the relation between the indi-
    vidual and society. The Golden Rule tries to integrate the individual to society;

    democ racy to integrate social organization to the individual.
    There is as yet no ethic dealing with mans relation to land and to the animals
    and plants which grow upon it. Land, like Odysseus slave- girls, is still property.
    The land relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.
    The extension of ethics to this third element in human environment is, if I

    read the evidence correctly, an evolutionary possibility and an ecological neces-
    sity. It is the third step in a sequence. The first two have already been taken. Indi-
    vidual thinkers 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 conservation movement as the
    embryo of such an affirmation.

    An ethic may be regarded as a mode of guidance for meeting ecological situ-
    ations so new or intricate, or involving such deferred reactions, that the path of

    social expediency is not discernible to the average individual. Animal instincts
    are modes of guidance for the individual in meeting such situations. Ethics are
    possibly a kind of community instinct in- the- making.
    The Community Concept

    All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a mem-
    ber of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to com-
    pete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co- operate

    (perhaps 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 obligation to the
    land of the free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just what and whom do we

    love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter- skelter downriver. Cer-
    tainly 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 extermi-
    nate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly 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


    The Ten Commandments found in the book of Exodus in the Bible. Eds.

    12_SHE_67650_&K12_887_1004.indd 907 6/18/12 3:13 PM

    these resources, but it does affirm their right to continued exis tence, and, at
    least in spots, their continued exis tence in a natural state.
    In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of
    the land- community 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 eventu-
    ally self- defeating. Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that the conqueror

    knows, ex cathedra,
    just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and
    who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always
    turns out that he knows neither, and this is why his conquests eventually defeat
    In the biotic community, a parallel situation exists. Abraham knew exactly
    what the land was for: it was to drip milk and honey into Abrahams mouth. At
    the present moment, the assurance with which we regard this assumption is
    inverse to the degree of our education.

    The ordinary citizen today assumes that science knows what makes the com-
    munity clock tick; the scientist is equally sure that he does not. He knows that the

    biotic mechanism is so complex that its workings may never be fully understood.
    That man is, in fact, only a member 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 Revolution, three groups were contending for its control: the native
    Indian, the French and En glish traders, and the American settlers. Historians
    wonder what would have happened if the En glish at Detroit had thrown a little
    more weight into the Indian side of those tipsy scales which decided the outcome

    of the colonial migration into the cane- lands of Kentucky. It is time now to pon-
    der 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 blue-
    grass. What if the plant succession 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 Kenton3

    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?

    Kentucky was one sentence in the drama of history. We are commonly told
    what the human actors in this drama tried to do, but we are seldom told that their


    Latin for from the chair, here meaning from the seat of authority, often a reference to infal-
    lible papal decrees. Eds.


    Daniel Boone (17341820) and Simon Kenton (17551836), famous American frontiers-
    men. Eds.

    12_SHE_67650_&K12_887_1004.indd 908 6/18/12 3:13 PM

    success, or the lack 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 Ken-
    tucky, we do not even know where the bluegrass came from whether it is a

    native species, or a stowaway from Europe.
    Contrast the cane- lands with what hindsight tells us about the Southwest,
    where the pioneers were equally brave, resourceful, and persevering. The impact
    of occupancy here brought no bluegrass, or other plant fitted to withstand the
    bumps and buffetings of hard use. This region, when grazed by livestock, reverted

    through a series of more and more worthless grasses, shrubs, and weeds to a con-
    dition of un stable equilibrium. Each recession of plant types bred erosion; each

    increment to erosion bred a further recession of plants. The result today is a pro-
    gressive and mutual deterioration, not only of plants and soils, but of the animal

    community subsisting thereon. The early settlers did not expect this: on the
    of New Mexico some even cut ditches to hasten it. So subtle has been its
    progress that few residents of the region are aware of it. It is quite invis ible to the
    tourist who finds this wrecked landscape colorful and charming (as indeed it is,
    but it bears scant resemblance to what it was in 1848).
    This same landscape was developed once before, but with quite different
    results. The Pueblo Indians settled the Southwest in pre- Columbian times, but
    they happened not to be equipped with range livestock. Their civilization expired,
    but not because their land expired.

    In India, regions devoid of any sod- forming grass have been settled, appar-
    ently without wrecking the land, by the simple expedient of carrying the grass to

    the cow, rather than vice versa. (Was this the result of some deep wisdom, or was
    it just good luck? I do not know.)
    In short, the plant succession steered the course of history; the pioneer simply
    demonstrated, for good or ill, which 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 Ecological Conscience

    Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. Despite nearly a cen-
    tury of propaganda, conservation still proceeds at a snails pace; progress still

    consists largely of letterhead pieties and convention oratory. On the back forty we
    still slip two steps backward for each forward stride.
    The usual answer to this dilemma is more conservation education. No one
    will debate this, but is it certain that only the volume of education needs stepping
    up? Is something lacking in the content as well?
    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


    Spring-fed marshes. Eds.

    12_SHE_67650_&K12_887_1004.indd 909 6/18/12 3:13 PM

    organizations, and practice what conservation is profitable on your own land; the
    government will do the rest.
    Is not this formula 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 enlight-
    ened self- interest. Just how far will such education take us? An example will

    perhaps yield a partial answer.

    By 1930 it had become clear to all except the ecologically blind that south-
    western Wisconsins 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 contract period was up. The farmers continued only those practices that
    yielded an immediate and visible economic gain for themselves.
    This led to the idea that maybe farmers would learn more quickly if they
    themselves wrote the rules. Accordingly the Wisconsin Legislature in 1937 passed
    the Soil Conservation District Law. This said to farmers, in effect: We, the public,
    will furnish you free technical service and loan you specialized 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 organ ized to accept the
    proffered help, but after a decade of operation, no county has yet written a single
    rule. There has been visible progress in such practices as strip- cropping, pasture
    renovation, and soil liming, but none in fencing woodlots against grazing, and
    none in excluding plow and cow from steep slopes. The farmers, in short, have
    selected those remedial practices which were profitable anyhow, and ignored

    those which were profitable to the community, but not clearly profitable to them-

    When one asks why no rules have been written, one is told that the commu-
    nity is not yet ready to support them; education must precede rules. But the

    education actually in progress makes no mention of obligations to land over and

    above those dictated by self- interest. The net result is that we have more educa-
    tion but less soil, fewer healthy woods, and as many floods as in 1937.

    The puzzling aspect of such situations is that the exis tence of obligations

    over and above self- interest is taken for granted in such rural community enter-
    prises as the betterment of roads, schools, churches, and baseball teams. Their

    exis tence is not taken for granted, nor as yet seriously discussed, in bettering the
    behavior of the water that falls on the land, or in the preserving of the beauty or

    diversity of the farm landscape. Land- use ethics are still governed wholly by eco-
    nomic self- interest, just as social ethics were a century ago.

    To sum up: we asked the farmer to do what he conveniently could to save his
    soil, and he has done just that, and only that. The farmer who clears the woods off
    a 75 per cent slope, turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall, rocks,

    and soil into the community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected mem-

    12_SHE_67650_&K12_887_1004.indd 910 6/18/12 3:13 PM

    ber of society. If he puts lime on his fields and plants his crops on contour, he is

    still entitled to all the privileges and emoluments of his Soil Conservation Dis-
    trict. The District is a beautiful piece of social machinery, but it is coughing along

    on two cylinders because we have been too timid, and too anxious for quick suc-
    cess, to tell the farmer the true magnitude of his obligations. Obligations have no

    meaning without conscience, and the problem we face is the extension of social
    conscience from people to land.
    No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without an internal
    change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions. The
    proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in
    the fact that philosophy and religion have not yet heard of it. In our attempt to
    make conservation easy, we have made it trivial. . . .
    Land Health and the A- B Cleavage
    A land ethic, then, reflects the exis tence of an ecological conscience, and this in
    turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land.
    Health is the capacity of the land for self- renewal. Conservation is our effort to
    understand and preserve this capacity.
    Conservationists are notorious for their dissensions. Superficially these seem
    to add up to mere confusion, but a more careful scrutiny reveals a single plane of
    cleavage common to many specialized fields. In each field one group (A) regards
    the land as soil, and its function as commodity- production; another group (B)
    regards the land as a biota, and its function as something broader. How much
    broader is admittedly in a state of doubt and confusion.
    In my own field, forestry, Group A is quite content to grow trees like cabbages,

    with cellulose as the basic forest commodity. It feels no inhibition against vio-
    lence; its ideology is agronomic. Group B, on the other hand, sees forestry as

    fundamentally different from agronomy because it employs natural species, and
    manages a natural environment rather than creating an artificial one. Group B

    prefers natural reproduction on principle. It worries on biotic as well as eco-
    nomic grounds about the loss of species like chestnut, and the threatened loss of

    the white pines. It worries about a whole series of secondary forest functions:
    wildlife, recreation, watersheds, wilderness areas. To my mind, Group B feels the
    stirrings of an ecological conscience.

    In the wildlife field, a parallel cleavage exists. For Group A the basic com-
    modities are sport and meat; the yardsticks of production are ciphers of take in

    pheasants and trout. Artificial propagation is acceptable as a permanent as well as

    a temporary recourse if its unit costs permit. Group B, on the other hand, wor-
    ries about a whole series of biotic side- issues. What is the cost in predators of

    producing a game crop? Should we have further recourse to exotics? How can
    management restore the shrinking species, like prairie grouse, already hopeless
    as shootable game? How can management restore the threatened rarities, like

    12_SHE_67650_&K12_887_1004.indd 911 6/18/12 3:13 PM

    trumpeter swan and whooping crane? Can management principles be extended
    to wildflowers? Here again 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 competent to speak, but there seem
    to be somewhat parallel cleavages. Scientific agriculture was actively developing
    before ecology was born, hence a slower penetration of ecological concepts might
    be expected. Moreover the farmer, by the very nature of his techniques, must

    modify the biota more radically than the forester or the wildlife manager. Never-
    theless, there are many discontents in agriculture which seem to add up to a new

    vision of biotic farming.
    Perhaps the most important of these is the new evidence that poundage or
    tonnage is no measure of the food- value of farm crops; the products of fertile soil
    may be qualitatively as well as quantitatively superior. We can bolster poundage
    from depleted soils by pouring on imported fertility, but we are not necessarily
    bolstering food- value. The possible ultimate ramifications of this idea are so
    immense that I must leave their exposition to abler pens.
    The discontent that labels itself organic farming, while bearing some of the

    earmarks of a cult, is nevertheless biotic in its direction, particularly in its insis-
    tence on the importance of soil flora and fauna.

    The ecological fundamentals of agriculture are just as poorly known to the
    public as in other fields of land- use. For example, few educated people realize that

    the marvelous advances in technique made during recent decades are improve-
    ments in the pump, rather than the well. Acre for acre, they have barely sufficed

    to offset the sinking level of fertility.
    In all of these cleavages, we see repeated the same basic paradoxes: man the
    conqueror versus man the biotic citizen; science the sharpener of his sword versus
    science the searchlight on his universe; land the slave and servant versus land the
    collective organism. Robinsons injunction to Tristram may well be applied, at
    this juncture, to Homo sapiens as a species in geological time:
    Whether you will or not
    You are a King, Tristram, for you are one
    Of the time- tested few that leave the world,
    When they are gone, not the same place it was.
    Mark what you leave.
    The Outlook
    It is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation to land can exist without love,
    respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value. By value, I of
    course mean something far broader than mere economic value; I mean value in
    the philosophical sense.
    Perhaps the most serious obstacle impeding the evolution of a land ethic is
    the fact that our educational and economic system is headed away from, rather

    12_SHE_67650_&K12_887_1004.indd 912 6/18/12 3:13 PM

    than toward, an intense consciousness of land. Your true modern is separated
    from the land by many middlemen, and by innumerable physical gadgets. He has
    no vital relation to it; to him it is the space between cities on which crops grow.
    Turn him loose for a day on the land, and if the spot does not happen to be a golf
    links or a scenic area, he is bored 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 natural land products suit him better than the originals.
    In short, land is something he has outgrown.
    Almost equally serious as an obstacle to a land ethic is the attitude of the
    farmer for whom the land is still an adversary, or a taskmaster that keeps him in
    slav ery. Theoretically, the mechanization of farming ought to cut the farmers
    chains, but whether it really does is debatable.

    One of the requisites for an ecological comprehension of land is an under-
    standing of ecology, and this is by no means co- extensive with education; in

    fact, much higher education seems deliberately to avoid ecological concepts. An

    understanding of ecology does not necessarily originate in courses bearing eco-
    logical labels; it is quite as likely to be labeled geography, botany, agronomy, his-
    tory, or economics. This is as it should be, but whatever the label, ecological

    training is scarce.
    The case for a land ethic would appear hopeless but for the minority which
    is in obvious revolt against these modern trends.
    The key- log which must be moved to release the evolutionary process for
    an ethic is simply this: quit thinking about decent land- use as solely an economic
    problem. Examine each question in terms of what is ethically and esthetically
    right, as well as what is economically expedient. 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.
    It of course goes without saying that economic feasibility limits the tether of
    what can or cannot be done for land. It always has and it always will. The fallacy
    the economic determinists have tied around our collective neck, and which we
    now need to cast off, is the belief that economics determines all land-use. This is

    simply not true. An innumerable host of actions and attitudes, comprising per-
    haps the bulk of all land relations, is determined by the land- users tastes and

    predilections, rather than by his purse. The bulk of all land relations hinges on
    investments of time, forethought, skill, and faith rather than on investments of
    cash. As a land- user thinketh, so is he.
    I have purposely presented the land ethic as a product of social evolution

    because nothing so important as an ethic is ever written. Only the most super-
    ficial student of history supposes that Moses wrote the Decalogue; it evolved in

    the minds of a thinking community, and Moses wrote a tentative summary of it
    for a seminar. I say tentative because evolution never stops.
    The evolution of a land ethic is an intellectual as well as emotional process.
    Conservation is paved with good intentions which prove to be futile, or even
    dangerous, because they are devoid of critical understanding either of the land, or
    of economic land- use. I think it is a truism that as the ethical frontier advances
    from the individual to the community, its intellectual content increases.
    The mechanism of operation is the same for any ethic: social approbation for
    right actions: social disapproval for wrong actions.
    By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and implements. We are
    remodeling the Alhambra5

    with a steam- shovel, and we are proud of our yardage.
    We shall hardly relinquish the shovel, which after all has many good points, but
    we are in need of gentler and more objective criteria for its successful use.

                                                                                                                                      Order Now