36 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
Humans have been shaping the environment forever. A lot of the Western perception on environmentalism stems from the fact that by the time colonists arrived to the new world, as many as 95% of Native Americans had died from diseases introduced by the first explorers. They saw landscapes with seemingly sparse human influence and labeled them “virgin forests,” but we now know that this entire hemisphere was shaped by controlled burns, perhaps vast species management, and in some places elaborate irrigation schemes. Human influence on the environment is inevitable. I believe Leopold’s Land Ethic (extending community to the entire ecosystem, promoting biodiversity) is the most practical and philosophically sound method to reconcile the human potential for thorough destruction of the natural world with thoughtful restraint and careful stewardship.
Comment by falkorfalkor at 26/01/2020 at 06:21 UTC
5 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I took a course in the early 2000s where our textbook started off with 'The Land Ethic' and then had essays chronologically providing support and/or rebuttals.
I recall at the time being appalled at the essays concluding the only way climate change would be solved was through technology. I didn't fully understand how hard it would be to actually do anything meaningful in enough time when a large percent of the world's population is in doubt or complete disbelief.
I also think part of the big disconnect on the political spectrum is many on the left conflate the types of ideas in Leopold's essay with specific ways to mitigate climate change.