Since industrialization and the ‘great acceleration’ of the Anthropocene, Homo sapiens has relentlessly advanced in its inexorable march of domination over the environment. From saturating the atmosphere with toxic emissions to despoiling the most far-flung of landscapes, the ecological realm was profoundly altered—irrevocably. Humanity’s tyrannical hegemony continued unabated. Yet nature had the final laugh; it exacted revenge with unparalleled ferocity, presenting before us the ramifications of the devastation we had wrought ourselves.
The central principle underpinning the degradation of environmental architecture was a worldview that drove this calamity in the first place: a rationale rooted in a proprietorial worldview. Aldo Leopold, in his magnum opus, A Sand County Almanac, trenchantly exposes this outlook and proposes a decisively effective framework; one that would go on to become the guiding force of environmental ethics. Leopold simply argues for ‘enlarging the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.’ The crux of his contention was that ethical criteria, throughout human history, underwent changes and were expanded from owners to slaves, men to women, humans to animals. And what was needed at this critical juncture was stretching the moral perimeters to include the environment. This perspective, undoubtedly, is a radical one since it alters the role of humans from ‘conqueror of the land-community to a plain member and citizen of it’. No wonder it has been challenged with such vehement fervour.
Leopold’s genius lay in incisively pointing out the root of the problem. Humans never harboured ethical sentiments towards the biotic community because it was seen as a collection of resources, to be exploited for the material prosperity of the civilisation: swathes of forests were cleared for urban development and meeting the demand for timber; fossil fuels were incessantly extracted for establishing the modern industrialised apparatus; marine ecosystems were destroyed for commercial profit; and species were hunted into extinction for economic gains. Pecuniary considerations preceded ethical ones—always.
Leopold’s conception argues for a stewardship role. His seminal principle—that ‘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’—entails and imposes upon us certain responsibilities towards the natural world. Considered in that light, it is tempting to wonder about the multitude of ecological catastrophes that could have been prevented had we adopted this lens of thought.
That said, the principal case put forward against the philosopher’s framework is that it argues from a Western lens, and hence is a foreign export not universally applicable. However, Leopold did not form the basis of this line of thought; he coherently systematised it. The Quran, for instance, specifically describes mankind as vicegerents of God on Earth (Qur’an 6:165). This verse carries significant theological import, as humans are not defined as owners; hence, their relationship with the natural world is subject to moral scrutiny, and they would be held accountable for the trusteeship bestowed upon them. Moreover, the Quranic injunction against fasad fi’l ard—corruption and disorder—has been elaborated by some modern Muslim scholars as a warning against destabilising the ecological balance (Mizan).
Another proposition furthered against Leopold’s argumentative thread is that it risks advocating for ecological mysticism and renunciation of human primacy. For example, the significance accorded to the biotic community could override the primacy of individual creatures. This, however, is a distorted understanding of the land ethic. Leopold himself was a forester who understood the codependency of humans and the environment. His land ethic is best interpreted as a supplement to individual-regarding ethics, not as an utter replacement for them.
After almost eighty years since A Sand County Almanac, the land ethic is ever more relevant. Despite having witnessed the dire implications of the ‘conqueror’ role, humanity persists in refusing to relinquish its position. Even in the presence of the tremendous evidence of human-induced climate change, which is progressing at a staggering rate, adequate measures are still missing to mitigate the cataclysm that could wipe out entire species and wreak unprecedented havoc on humanity. If we desire to thwart it to some extent, we have to embrace the land ethic and realise the consequences of not doing so. The missing piece in the discourse around the environment and climate is a reassessment of roles; it is, finally, taking up the responsibility of the steward.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Hamza Tareen is a sophomore at LUMS, majoring in political science and likes to write on a wide range of topics from philosophy and theology to Islamic history and politics.
