The way we treat the Earth and its ecosystems must be deliberated in an ethical way that considers moral, social, historical, and religious perspectives. In texts such as Aldo Leopold’s “The Land Ethic”, Lauret Savoy’s “Alien Land Ethic”, and Pope Francis’ “Laudato Si”, we can see the ways that each of these authors present their opinions on the relationship that humans have with the Earth. The ethical arguments presented in each of the texts show unique, yet overlapping theories of how humans should treat the earth, from a moral perspective to a social perspective, to a religious perspective.
Laudato Si by Pope Francis comes at the ethical ways we should treat the earth from a religious perspective. He believes that we hold an ideology that “distorted our mandate to ‘have dominion’ over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), to ‘till it and keep it’ (Gen 2:1,5). As a result, the originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual (cf. Gen 3:17-1,9)” (53). The way that we see the Earth is not that of an equal relationship, but of an abusive relationship where one side reaps the benefits while the other is damaged. Humans exploit resources from ecosystems in a harmful and unforgiving way. If we want to start making changes to help repair the Earth, it begins with removing humans from a dominant position and instead placing them on the same level as other organisms.
Pope Francis directly addresses that human activities are toxic, in terms of climate change, but also in terms of how our actions are affecting the poorest people. He says that “many professionals, opinion makers, communications media and centers of power, being located in affluent urban areas, are far removed from the poor, with little direct contact with their problems” and because of this, “we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach” (26).
Humans cannot continue living in a way that harms billions of other people living in poverty just because we cannot realize the effects that they face. Pope Francis’ reasoning is that it is ethical to look at both the social and ecological perspectives, and that change cannot exclusively from a religious approach. Coming to change through a social, moral, and religious lens, means to look at how specific actions will affect people, if that action should be taken, and if the action is consistent with religious teachings or philosophies. Aldo Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” takes Pope Francis’ argument and stretches it further to include that we must have a conscience if we want to see change.
Leopold shows how the role of humans must be considered when we think of changing the relationship between humans and the Earth. Typically, humans consider themselves to be superior to other life forms. Not only that, but humans also believe that they are free to take resources as they please from the planet, such as wood, coal, water, and animals. Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” proposes the idea that humans should not always be dominant. He writes: “In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homosapiens 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” (204).
Changing the role of humans means that humans can no longer morally exploit the Earth’s resources. Humans should not be the rulers of the Earth, but we should be part of the Earth and on the same level as the other members and organisms inhabiting the planet. He also says that abiding by this and not thinking of humans as the dominant species implies respect for other living things and their communities. This means that when humans put themselves within a community of living creatures instead of on top, respect will automatically be present in the relationship. Respect shows that humans will not needlessly exploit and take from ecosystems, but instead consider the effects of their consumption on those ecosystems.
However, Leopold also notes that just because we put ourselves on the same level as other living things does not mean we will automatically alter our lifestyles. He says that “obligations have no meaning without conscience, and the problem we face is the extension of the social conscience from people to land” (209). Humans can no longer be dominant if we want to maintain our earth and preserve our earth. The damage we cause the Earth reveals that this relationship is harmful for the planet. Humans have repeatedly shown that caring for future generations of humans is one of the only things that motivates change.
Saying that it affects biodiversity, the ecosystems, or the billions of people living in poverty today are also relevant causes, but these problems are easier to ignore because of the Western bubble we live in. We like to ignore problems from other countries and from places that are not close to us. We can focus on other problems just as easily as we could climate change and the way that humans have negatively altered the earth’s ecosystems. But we choose not to because facing up to our actions is much more difficult than turning away and ignoring what we have done. It is much easier to live without thinking about the consequences that other people and other organisms will face because of our lifestyles. This being said, Leopold’s arguments do not exist without their critics.
In Lauret Savoy’s “Alien Land Ethic”, she responds to Leopold by directly quoting him and analyzing his points. Her arguments come from the side that has been historically oppressed and continues to be. She is critical about his example of slavery, and questions why he felt he had to go all the way back to ancient Greece to talk about our concept of property when he could have looked at the obvious, recent example of slavery in the United States. “I couldn’t understand why, in a book so concerned with America’s past, the only reference to slavery, to human beings as property, was about ancient Greece.” If Leopold wanted to talk about slavery, he had no need to go back thousands of years when he could have gone back less than 100 years when A Sand County Almanac was written in 1949.
This stretch exemplifies how it is easy to ignore aspects of society that do not affect you. Leopold was never affected by slavery in his lifetime as a white man, and his essays reflect that. It was easier for him to look at examples from ancient Greece than to look at the society he existed in. This proves that Leopold lived inside a bubble privilege where his identity did not require him to look at other people’s lives or look to other cultures within his society for examples about ethical arguments. Somehow, his next argument applies to himself directly, and Savoy exposes this reality.
Savoy asks if Leopold had considered her when he talks about how losing a human culture is uncomplicated if we do not know enough about it. “Other passages in A Sand County Almanac confused: ‘The erasure of a human subspecies is largely painless— to us— if we know little enough about it. A dead Chinaman is of little importance to us whose awareness of things Chinese is bounded by an occasional dish of chow mein. We grieve only for what we know.’ Why not know “things Chinese”?” This confused Savoy because just sentences ago Leopold was ignoring the example of slavery in American society and now he uses Chinese culture to make a point about how we forget about cultures we know little about.
Leopold himself forgets about a culture that Savoy belongs to. Savoy’s additions and criticisms of Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” reinforce that we must focus on not only the relationship between humans and the Earth but between humans as well. The way we treat other humans is significant, and it is an integral part of how we are going to change our lifestyles if we decide to do so. Change cannot be made when a group feels excluded and when there are strong divides between the people trying to make a difference.
These texts, although unique in their perspectives, all focus on the common theme of how human’s relationship to the Earth should change. Pope Francis and Leopold both promote the change that humans should make from dominion over the Earth to being on the same level as other living creatures. Savoy’s essay works to include her own culture and the culture of others into the narrative when talking about relationships between humans. Pope Francis also agrees with Savoy’s points because he includes that we should focus on the poor and underprivileged people of the world, who more often than not are minorities.
Although the texts diverge because of their perspectives on what approaches we need to take, they all agree that ethical change is necessary. Leopold holds ecological and social ways of thinking about the Earth, while Savoy includes historical and political ways, and Pope Francis includes the religious or sacred way of thinking. These perspectives are all vital parts of the interdisciplinary approach to the way we should treat the Earth.
Personally, I agree the most with Savoy’s perspective because it comes from an oppressed viewpoint that understands the social relationships and problems within U.S. society. Fixing the ecological problems must also include the social aspect, because without factoring in that human relationships, the problem-solving process will be hindered. The damage that human activity has caused is drastic. From carbon emissions, to deforestation, to the overuse of resources, the way that humans have exploited the Earth and its resources is unethical. Working towards solutions is how we as a human species can make reparations for the damage we have caused. However, solutions will not come forward if they do not include all perspectives of the problem. This means including social, ecological, and religious perspectives are all valid and meaningful. These perspectives should be included in any conversation about ethical change as the conversation cannot continue without them, and progress cannot be made without them.
