Analysis Of Leopold's Expression Of Land Ethics

When reading Leopold’s expression of land ethics discussing the complex relationship of humans with each other in terms of community as well as both humans and community factors impacting the land I found his positions nearly moving in parallel motions with my own. The continually changing society and the environment surrounding it require a morally and ethically directed connection in terms of logic and emotion. Understanding how people treat their interactions with each other and the land are necessary when understanding how moral obligations impact our surroundings. Although I'm in agreeance with Leopold, there are forever changing flaws in his statements. To fully understand how we as humans should treat the earth that surrounds us,
Although Leopold’s earlier mentioned test of conservation can be used in some situations, there are moments when it is ineffective. For example, there may be a situation where the beauty of a specific environment is dramatically reduced for a period of time to benefit the longterm stability. But how can different environmental factors be measured? For example the beauty of an environment can be seen as opinionated. And in return, even if they were able to be measured how can we begin to compare them and determine which ones are more important? In an additional example situation, is it morally correct to hurt certain factors the environment temporarily to benefit the longterm quality of the land? Is the current beauty, integrity, and stability more or less important than the longterm
Leopold suggests that in order for people to properly appreciate the land, they have to experience it. This makes a large amount of sense to me due to the fact that without actually experiencing something, people don't have proper understanding. He states that decision makers must expand past self interests and experience the land by literally spending time in nature is a beneficial way to do just that. For example, politicians and corporate CEOs make decisions on what will happen to large portions of land without every experiencing it. Activists that promote the conservation of land generally have a better understanding of actions that should be taken simply because they have experienced the land and its qualities. In order to close this gap in differing position, decisions makers should be required to view specific lands and engage in the existing atmosphere. For example, a politician voting to change zoning creating the potential for a park to be turned into a commercial district where high rise buildings could be built should first experience the site. Prior to visiting they may not see all of the species that already exist and occupy the site including animals and trees. Without experiencing a situation, there is no way to properly make morally challenging