Both Snyder and Leopold are involved in expansion of languages having to do with nature. Housed in Snyder's redefinitions of the words nature, wild, wildness, and wilderness are implicit value judgments and moral ideologies for approaching nature in a holistic way. Likewise Leopold is exhorting us to expand our ethical vocabularies. Leopold's foreword anticipates Snyder's purpose in Etiquette. He states, "Perhaps such a shift of values can be achieved by reappraising things unnatural, tame, and confined in terms of things natural, wild, and free" (Leopold xix). I don't think we should begrudge Leopold's use of the couple "wild and free" here though one motif of our class discussion has been the hollowness of that American notion. Each author is asking for redefinitions of perception, to "couch" our eyes via their words in order to change our attitudes which will then impact our behaviors. Hopefully this will lead to the adoption of a "split-rail" value system like Leopold endorses in his own Wisconsin. I think Snyder and Leopold are also cut from the same cloth in that they treat wildlife research as a sport in the sense that Leopold defines it in "Wildlife in American Culture." In Leopold's words, "They simply realized that the most fun lies in seeing and studying the unknown." Cass Curl
Like Snyder’s Etiquette, Leopold’s Land Ethic explores the ways in which our lands are developed and settled and in turn proposes redefining our concepts of community. Leopold suggests we view the land including the animals, plants, soil, water, bacteria etc, as an important extension of our community. Developing a connection with our communities only fuels a desire for protection and cooperation. A land ethic, Leopold says, “changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.”
Gary Snyder's Etiquette and Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic both encourage the reader to expand her mind through expanding compassion. Snyder gives an interesting lesson in the evolution of language and word use, mis-use, abuse, or how language propagates these of the land; Leopold points out the recurring theme that civilized people have no relation to the land in which they live. Our use of language gives power to the way we ignore land. Leopold's conviction that value should not only relate economic worth is a concept implicitly attacked by Snyder, as he says "If [people of wilderness] deliberately risk themselves, it is for spiritual rather than economic reasons." Both writers' works revolve around the intuition that the world is co- and inter-dependent--Leopold's land pyramid is a good example--and that should be reason enough to turn a compassionate eye towards the wild and incorporate nature into our considerations in life.
The "ethics" of Leopold are comparable to the "etiquette" of Snyder because they both serve as "modes of guidance for meeting ecological situations". Both appeal to the philosophical relationship between humans and landscape dependent upon generosity of spirit that enables the communal practice of giving and taking. The practice of both ethics and etiquette "changes the role of Homo sapiens from conquerer of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it". When we approach land, it is essential that we respect and admire the land as an equal rather than something we as "civilized humans" must control and manipulate. The fact is that land doesn't need or want to be conquered. Nature doesn't play any tricks; the processes that began the growth of the tiniest organisms billions of years ago are the same processes that enable growth today.
Both Leopold's Land Ethic and Snyder's Etiquette of Freedom address how we must behave towards nature if we are to "conserve" it. Both authors speak of the conquerers of the land. Leopold speaks of the conquerer mentality which supposes that one knows everything about the conquered and what deserves to live and what does not. Snyder speaks about the adventurers who named places that they had just traveled through after their girlfriends and what not. Both authors write about seeing value in nature that is not economic. This is one of Leopold's key ideas in the Land Ethic and I think a big issue in our world today. Things are only done if they are profitable and not if they are right. It is true that we must profit in order to survive and live a decent life, but there must be things done that are not profitable for us monetarily if we are to enjoy the fullness of the life experience that we are given. Snyder describes nature as wild and free and writes about the intricacies of the food web and the communication that exists in the forest that each animal is a part of. Leopold writes about the diversity of the soil and of the biological food pyramid that is being degraded due to our seeking to control and standardize nature and due to our ignorance even when we have no bad intentions. These authors are trying to show us that there is something of value and something in the wild that needs to be preserved and maintained. This will only be done if we change the way that we behave towards and think about nature.
Leopold’s Land Ethic and Snyder’s Etiquette of Freedom are very similar in respects to their attitudes towards how man should handle conservation efforts. The section about thinking like a mountain reminded me greatly of the “mindful” manner of life that Snyder proposes in the Etiquette. Both believe that the only way to end our drastic pillaging of the earth is to instill a sense of community within the sphere for human kind. Both also expound the idea of wilderness, with Leopold calling wilderness the “raw material man hammered civilization from” (264), which is a view that Snyder seems to agree with when he talking about how wilderness is now mostly land set aside for public use. Both view wilderness as a once chaotic force that mankind is slowly hammering into submission.
Leopold and Snyder have similar perspectives on how to treat nature and not to take it for granted. They both share an ecological conscience and express their desires to change the way we treat and think about nature. Leopold has this idea that man puts economic motives above land and conservation ethics. Likewise, Synder believes that people take nature for granted and mis-define words related to nature such as wild or wilderness. In addition, he stresses the importance of connecting with the land and realizing that wildness is not only preservation of the world, but that it is the world. Leopold also demonstrates the importance of conserving the land and goes in depth about how to accomplish this task such as conservation education.
Both Leopold and Snyder agree that the we need to have a working relationship with the world around us. We need to be respectful of it and work with it - not turn it into a profitable item. "All ethics so far rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts...The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, or collectively: the land," (Leopold). Synder and Leopold agree that we share our existence with the land - we can't demand things from it, but must cooperate with it. Snyder gives his own definitions for the natural and wild land - it is something free and existing on its own, away from the manipulation of human hands. Leopold, too, points this out by saying that all too many of our natural and wild lands have been soiled by people, even when they believe their intentions toward the land are good. "Many biotas currently regarded as 'lands of opportunity' are in fact already subsisting on exploitive agriculture, i.e. they have already exceeded their sustained carrying capacity," (Leopold). In all, Leopold and Snyder believe that, to continue living with the land, we must allow it to prosper.
Leopold's "Land Ethic" was very similar to Snyder's "The Compact". In the beginning of Snyder's work he starts out by showing us that nature already has a compact or understanding. Predator and Prey relationships have to exists because that is part of the life cycle. Moving away from that balance will only upturn the ecosystem. Snyder suggests becoming familiar with this "compact" For me Leopold takes it one step further by suggesting that we do not yet have any kind of ethic or compact with the land because we do not see the land yet as something ethical. We see it for economic and recreational value, but we do not see it as an ethical being, which is why we do not treat the land with respect. He suggests that the only way to have an ethical understanding with the land is to love it and the only way to love is to learn about it. Which also goes along with the idea that Snyder has which is the "etiquette of Freedom". We have no etiquette with the land or nature around us, just like how Snyder says we are missing the ethical link with nature.
Leopold's ethic and Snyder''s etiquette are directly related in the sense that both preach a greater conservation effort. Leopold focuses more on how our self-interest has influenced our land-use to the point where conservation is pointless. Leopold's point is that in our attempts to conserve our land we have ignored the fact that "we can be ethical only in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in." This ties very closely to Snyder when he reminds us that walking, meditating, and practicing mindfulness in our relation to the land will bring us closer to it. Snyder also touches on how we have sought to control our environment for economic gain and must shed the notion that we are at the top of the food chain thus land serves us. Snyder's etiquette also asks us to give back in the "gift-exchange transaction" and not be so wasteless and careless to the land. Both authors ask us to move beyond the mentality that we are detached from the land and use it only as a 'resource' and instead respect, love, and preserve the integrity of it.
Both Leopold's "Land Ethic" and Snyder's "Etiquette" ask the reader to redefine how we should approach nature and the wilderness. Snyder speaks of the "compact" between organisms in the environment, and how we must be willing to recognize this and therefore connect with the land. Leopold points out that humans have primarily been motivated by economic goals when conserving land, and argues that we need to shed our perceptions of the natural world as only a resource and instead understand that we are a part of it. Both authors stress a intimate relationship with the land that does not focus on a economic viewpoint, but instead a viewpoint that stresses caring and understanding.
Leopold's "Land Ethnic" and Snyder's "Etiquette of Freedom" correlates with each other because both authors call for the readers to reexamine the way we view nature. Leopold compares the two different perspectives of land use. Animals who depend on the land place no economical value to the land, “members of the land community have no economic value” (210) whereas humans, our “land-use ethics are still government wholly be economic self-interest” (209). Therefore, by viewing that the land as an economic gain, we do not feel obligated to consider the interests of the rest of the environment that depends on the soil. The less we care, the more violence we do to the land. However, if we change the way we view the land we will come to love and care for the land and the animals that depends on it. Like Leopold, Snyder dissects our daily vocabulary and turns it upside down, right side up to understand words in different meanings. By shedding a positive light on words like nature, wildness, etc., Snyder stirs up the emotion of obligation. Both authors conclude that when we view nature in a positive sense we will feel more obligated and care for the environment more.
Both Synder and Leopold consider human relationship to the enviornment as too seperated and convoluted, which enables us to have a relationship that is not only destructive to the land, but to humans as well, in the long term. Both men note our misconceptions of our "command" over the land in leiu of viewing ourselves as a part of the ecological community. The idea of community with the enviornment, or rather, the lack of, is emulated in social relations that are broken and just as rapacious as our precepts of our place in the enviornment. Both invite us to reconsider our relationship to the natural world, to stop viewing everything in it as its surface physical material and start seeing it as a community where we coexsist with other species as well as eachtoher.
Snyder’s “etiquette” and Leopold’s “ethic” both recognize that our interpretations of certain language are skewed because of our lack of local knowledge. If we enrich our local knowledge, our effort toward conserving the environment would be beneficial because our need to dominate the land and the natural balance would no longer be a necessity. Both authors consider the ethical treatment of the land and our approach on how to change the way we treat it. Synder has the compact between humans and the land; this is where etiquette plays a role. Leopold’s priority lies within the harmony of the cycle of life, which humans should not disrupt. Both authors would agree that in order to allow the land the thrive; we must let it live without interruption (i.e. commercial use).
Snyder and Leopold are both concerned with the relationship that humans have with the environment is too separate and could be destructive to both parts. Both want us to reconsider the way we relate to the environment and coexist in a way that we are not currently succeeding in. Language is stressed in both pieces, the expansion and evolution of it and how it propagates the environment surrounding us is of paramount importance.
Gary Snyder and Aldos Leopold both advocate that people should alter their perception of nature. In current day, society is oblivious to all the damage that is being done to nature and both authors agree that in order for a change to be made, people need to redefine the way they describe nature. Gary Snyder focuses on how certain words such as "wild" and "wilderness" are mis-defined. People see the word "wild" be correlated with "unruly" and "barbaric". What they do not realize is that the world is all wild, even people who live within in. When society realizes the connection, they can make a "compact" with nature. The idea of "gift-exchange" can be established, where people and nature both give and take. Humans should be thankful for the cow that was killed in order to feed them. Aldo Leopold focuses more on how people prefer their economic motives over the land ethic. It does not matter if forests are being destroyed as long as paper is being provided. People do not have land ethics and thus have no respect towards nature. So while Snyder feels that words should be redefined, while Leopold feels that people's motives should be leaned towards land than the economy, both feel that the way people view nature should be altered in order to form a true bond.
Both Leopold and Snyder ask us to reconsider our use of language as it is housed in nature and the environment in which we live. Leopold, like Snyder believes in cooperation with the environment and equality with the land including animals, soil, bacteria water, plants etc. The ecosystems in which we live depend on us and we depend on them. Snyder advocated for etiquette which is not so different from Leopold's idea of the ethics of land--the land is our eual, treat it that way. The world is our consciousness.
Both Leopold and Snyder say we need to renew our respect for the land, the "soils, water, plants, and animals" (Leopold 39). Without mindfulness, we treat the land as if it's an object with no feelings of any kind, when in fact the land has a life of its own and a balance it constantly maintains. By acknowledging the land and welcoming it into our circle of friends we promise to take care of it, provide for it, and treat it with respect - just as you would with any other friend. Leopold writes "a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it" (240). We are not here to constantly take from nature and abuse it, but to take only what we need to survive. We treat the land as nature so it not completely stripped away of its regenerative capabilities. We also get to know the land as a friend. That requires local knowledge and knowing the sky, the birds, and the waters. Snyder writes that the "lessons we learn from the wild become the etiquette of freedom" (24). Understanding the world around us is the first step in being in balance with the land, only then do we start to care for it, take care of it, and build a connection with the land.
Leopold and Snyder both display the need to restore the land and change man's perspectives about nature. Snyder states we should not break this "compact", a synergistic system, and be able to live "without causing unnecessary harm..to all beings" (Snyder, 4). However, Snyder and Leopold knows that within our society today, we need to look away from self-interests and economic profits. From here we can see Leopold's point of view as he states "a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided" (Leopold, 214). These are not "conservation" efforts because it displays the disregard towards all elements in the environment. To fully be educated in nature and to maintain it, one must walk because it is "the exact balance of spirit and humility" in order to be able to see the interdependence (Snyder, 19).
Leopold and Snyders way of thinking and evoking knowledge are similar, in the way that both of them think we need to change our behavior. Both authors promote the idea that we need to develop our language, and change the ways in which we go about living our day to day lives. Both authors agree that we need to redefine the way we use our words, wild,natual, wilderness, and such need to be rightfully distinguished and defined. Both authors believe that we have created far too large of a gap between the human race and nature, which clearly does not make sense since we are a part of nature. Overall, language is a large factor that these authors try to promote.
21 comments:
Both Snyder and Leopold are involved in expansion of languages having to do with nature. Housed in Snyder's redefinitions of the words nature, wild, wildness, and wilderness are implicit value judgments and moral ideologies for approaching nature in a holistic way. Likewise Leopold is exhorting us to expand our ethical vocabularies. Leopold's foreword anticipates Snyder's purpose in Etiquette. He states, "Perhaps such a shift of values can be achieved by reappraising things unnatural, tame, and confined in terms of things natural, wild, and free" (Leopold xix). I don't think we should begrudge Leopold's use of the couple "wild and free" here though one motif of our class discussion has been the hollowness of that American notion. Each author is asking for redefinitions of perception, to "couch" our eyes via their words in order to change our attitudes which will then impact our behaviors. Hopefully this will lead to the adoption of a "split-rail" value system like Leopold endorses in his own Wisconsin. I think Snyder and Leopold are also cut from the same cloth in that they treat wildlife research as a sport in the sense that Leopold defines it in "Wildlife in American Culture." In Leopold's words, "They simply realized that the most fun lies in seeing and studying the unknown."
Cass Curl
Like Snyder’s Etiquette, Leopold’s Land Ethic explores the ways in which our lands are developed and settled and in turn proposes redefining our concepts of community. Leopold suggests we view the land including the animals, plants, soil, water, bacteria etc, as an important extension of our community. Developing a connection with our communities only fuels a desire for protection and cooperation. A land ethic, Leopold says, “changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.”
Gary Snyder's Etiquette and Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic both encourage the reader to expand her mind through expanding compassion. Snyder gives an interesting lesson in the evolution of language and word use, mis-use, abuse, or how language propagates these of the land; Leopold points out the recurring theme that civilized people have no relation to the land in which they live. Our use of language gives power to the way we ignore land. Leopold's conviction that value should not only relate economic worth is a concept implicitly attacked by Snyder, as he says "If [people of wilderness] deliberately risk themselves, it is for spiritual rather than economic reasons." Both writers' works revolve around the intuition that the world is co- and inter-dependent--Leopold's land pyramid is a good example--and that should be reason enough to turn a compassionate eye towards the wild and incorporate nature into our considerations in life.
The "ethics" of Leopold are comparable to the "etiquette" of Snyder because they both serve as "modes of guidance for meeting ecological situations". Both appeal to the philosophical relationship between humans and landscape dependent upon generosity of spirit that enables the communal practice of giving and taking. The practice of both ethics and etiquette "changes the role of Homo sapiens from conquerer of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it". When we approach land, it is essential that we respect and admire the land as an equal rather than something we as "civilized humans" must control and manipulate. The fact is that land doesn't need or want to be conquered. Nature doesn't play any tricks; the processes that began the growth of the tiniest organisms billions of years ago are the same processes that enable growth today.
Snyder's "étiquette" and Leopold's "ethic" at its core, share many similarities, especially in its function in communicating the need for conservation. Leopold defines "land ethic" in his work by stating "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 is also within the essay entitled "A Land Ethic" in his work, where he makes a rationale yet passionate need for conservation. One of the ways in which conservation is plausible is to establish and provide conservation education, which would then give way to developing a language around conservation of the environment. In short, language and nature are intimately linked and tied together. Without conservation, nature, which humans already brutally exploit will be in an even worse shape than it is currently. As modern society evolves and continues to demand more out of humans and nature, conservation, which occurs at a slow pace needs to be an important and imperative subject to promote.
Both Leopold's Land Ethic and Snyder's Etiquette of Freedom address how we must behave towards nature if we are to "conserve" it. Both authors speak of the conquerers of the land. Leopold speaks of the conquerer mentality which supposes that one knows everything about the conquered and what deserves to live and what does not. Snyder speaks about the adventurers who named places that they had just traveled through after their girlfriends and what not. Both authors write about seeing value in nature that is not economic. This is one of Leopold's key ideas in the Land Ethic and I think a big issue in our world today. Things are only done if they are profitable and not if they are right. It is true that we must profit in order to survive and live a decent life, but there must be things done that are not profitable for us monetarily if we are to enjoy the fullness of the life experience that we are given. Snyder describes nature as wild and free and writes about the intricacies of the food web and the communication that exists in the forest that each animal is a part of. Leopold writes about the diversity of the soil and of the biological food pyramid that is being degraded due to our seeking to control and standardize nature and due to our ignorance even when we have no bad intentions. These authors are trying to show us that there is something of value and something in the wild that needs to be preserved and maintained. This will only be done if we change the way that we behave towards and think about nature.
Leopold’s Land Ethic and Snyder’s Etiquette of Freedom are very similar in respects to their attitudes towards how man should handle conservation efforts. The section about thinking like a mountain reminded me greatly of the “mindful” manner of life that Snyder proposes in the Etiquette. Both believe that the only way to end our drastic pillaging of the earth is to instill a sense of community within the sphere for human kind. Both also expound the idea of wilderness, with Leopold calling wilderness the “raw material man hammered civilization from” (264), which is a view that Snyder seems to agree with when he talking about how wilderness is now mostly land set aside for public use. Both view wilderness as a once chaotic force that mankind is slowly hammering into submission.
Leopold and Snyder have similar perspectives on how to treat nature and not to take it for granted. They both share an ecological conscience and express their desires to change the way we treat and think about nature. Leopold has this idea that man puts economic motives above land and conservation ethics. Likewise, Synder believes that people take nature for granted and mis-define words related to nature such as wild or wilderness. In addition, he stresses the importance of connecting with the land and realizing that wildness is not only preservation of the world, but that it is the world. Leopold also demonstrates the importance of conserving the land and goes in depth about how to accomplish this task such as conservation education.
Both Leopold and Snyder agree that the we need to have a working relationship with the world around us. We need to be respectful of it and work with it - not turn it into a profitable item. "All ethics so far rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts...The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, or collectively: the land," (Leopold). Synder and Leopold agree that we share our existence with the land - we can't demand things from it, but must cooperate with it. Snyder gives his own definitions for the natural and wild land - it is something free and existing on its own, away from the manipulation of human hands. Leopold, too, points this out by saying that all too many of our natural and wild lands have been soiled by people, even when they believe their intentions toward the land are good. "Many biotas currently regarded as 'lands of opportunity' are in fact already subsisting on exploitive agriculture, i.e. they have already exceeded their sustained carrying capacity," (Leopold). In all, Leopold and Snyder believe that, to continue living with the land, we must allow it to prosper.
Leopold's "Land Ethic" was very similar to Snyder's "The Compact". In the beginning of Snyder's work he starts out by showing us that nature already has a compact or understanding. Predator and Prey relationships have to exists because that is part of the life cycle. Moving away from that balance will only upturn the ecosystem. Snyder suggests becoming familiar with this "compact" For me Leopold takes it one step further by suggesting that we do not yet have any kind of ethic or compact with the land because we do not see the land yet as something ethical. We see it for economic and recreational value, but we do not see it as an ethical being, which is why we do not treat the land with respect. He suggests that the only way to have an ethical understanding with the land is to love it and the only way to love is to learn about it. Which also goes along with the idea that Snyder has which is the "etiquette of Freedom". We have no etiquette with the land or nature around us, just like how Snyder says we are missing the ethical link with nature.
Leopold's ethic and Snyder''s etiquette are directly related in the sense that both preach a greater conservation effort. Leopold focuses more on how our self-interest has influenced our land-use to the point where conservation is pointless. Leopold's point is that in our attempts to conserve our land we have ignored the fact that "we can be ethical only in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in." This ties very closely to Snyder when he reminds us that walking, meditating, and practicing mindfulness in our relation to the land will bring us closer to it. Snyder also touches on how we have sought to control our environment for economic gain and must shed the notion that we are at the top of the food chain thus land serves us. Snyder's etiquette also asks us to give back in the "gift-exchange transaction" and not be so wasteless and careless to the land. Both authors ask us to move beyond the mentality that we are detached from the land and use it only as a 'resource' and instead respect, love, and preserve the integrity of it.
Both Leopold's "Land Ethic" and Snyder's "Etiquette" ask the reader to redefine how we should approach nature and the wilderness. Snyder speaks of the "compact" between organisms in the environment, and how we must be willing to recognize this and therefore connect with the land. Leopold points out that humans have primarily been motivated by economic goals when conserving land, and argues that we need to shed our perceptions of the natural world as only a resource and instead understand that we are a part of it. Both authors stress a intimate relationship with the land that does not focus on a economic viewpoint, but instead a viewpoint that stresses caring and understanding.
Leopold's "Land Ethnic" and Snyder's "Etiquette of Freedom" correlates with each other because both authors call for the readers to reexamine the way we view nature. Leopold compares the two different perspectives of land use. Animals who depend on the land place no economical value to the land, “members of the land community have no economic value” (210) whereas humans, our “land-use ethics are still government wholly be economic self-interest” (209). Therefore, by viewing that the land as an economic gain, we do not feel obligated to consider the interests of the rest of the environment that depends on the soil. The less we care, the more violence we do to the land. However, if we change the way we view the land we will come to love and care for the land and the animals that depends on it. Like Leopold, Snyder dissects our daily vocabulary and turns it upside down, right side up to understand words in different meanings. By shedding a positive light on words like nature, wildness, etc., Snyder stirs up the emotion of obligation. Both authors conclude that when we view nature in a positive sense we will feel more obligated and care for the environment more.
Both Synder and Leopold consider human relationship to the enviornment as too seperated and convoluted, which enables us to have a relationship that is not only destructive to the land, but to humans as well, in the long term. Both men note our misconceptions of our "command" over the land in leiu of viewing ourselves as a part of the ecological community. The idea of community with the enviornment, or rather, the lack of, is emulated in social relations that are broken and just as rapacious as our precepts of our place in the enviornment. Both invite us to reconsider our relationship to the natural world, to stop viewing everything in it as its surface physical material and start seeing it as a community where we coexsist with other species as well as eachtoher.
Snyder’s “etiquette” and Leopold’s “ethic” both recognize that our interpretations of certain language are skewed because of our lack of local knowledge. If we enrich our local knowledge, our effort toward conserving the environment would be beneficial because our need to dominate the land and the natural balance would no longer be a necessity. Both authors consider the ethical treatment of the land and our approach on how to change the way we treat it. Synder has the compact between humans and the land; this is where etiquette plays a role. Leopold’s priority lies within the harmony of the cycle of life, which humans should not disrupt. Both authors would agree that in order to allow the land the thrive; we must let it live without interruption (i.e. commercial use).
Snyder and Leopold are both concerned with the relationship that humans have with the environment is too separate and could be destructive to both parts. Both want us to reconsider the way we relate to the environment and coexist in a way that we are not currently succeeding in. Language is stressed in both pieces, the expansion and evolution of it and how it propagates the environment surrounding us is of paramount importance.
Gary Snyder and Aldos Leopold both advocate that people should alter their perception of nature. In current day, society is oblivious to all the damage that is being done to nature and both authors agree that in order for a change to be made, people need to redefine the way they describe nature. Gary Snyder focuses on how certain words such as "wild" and "wilderness" are mis-defined. People see the word "wild" be correlated with "unruly" and "barbaric". What they do not realize is that the world is all wild, even people who live within in. When society realizes the connection, they can make a "compact" with nature. The idea of "gift-exchange" can be established, where people and nature both give and take. Humans should be thankful for the cow that was killed in order to feed them. Aldo Leopold focuses more on how people prefer their economic motives over the land ethic. It does not matter if forests are being destroyed as long as paper is being provided. People do not have land ethics and thus have no respect towards nature. So while Snyder feels that words should be redefined, while Leopold feels that people's motives should be leaned towards land than the economy, both feel that the way people view nature should be altered in order to form a true bond.
Both Leopold and Snyder ask us to reconsider our use of language as it is housed in nature and the environment in which we live. Leopold, like Snyder believes in cooperation with the environment and equality with the land including animals, soil, bacteria water, plants etc. The ecosystems in which we live depend on us and we depend on them. Snyder advocated for etiquette which is not so different from Leopold's idea of the ethics of land--the land is our eual, treat it that way. The world is our consciousness.
Both Leopold and Snyder say we need to renew our respect for the land, the "soils, water, plants, and animals" (Leopold 39). Without mindfulness, we treat the land as if it's an object with no feelings of any kind, when in fact the land has a life of its own and a balance it constantly maintains. By acknowledging the land and welcoming it into our circle of friends we promise to take care of it, provide for it, and treat it with respect - just as you would with any other friend. Leopold writes "a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it" (240). We are not here to constantly take from nature and abuse it, but to take only what we need to survive. We treat the land as nature so it not completely stripped away of its regenerative capabilities. We also get to know the land as a friend. That requires local knowledge and knowing the sky, the birds, and the waters. Snyder writes that the "lessons we learn from the wild become the etiquette of freedom" (24). Understanding the world around us is the first step in being in balance with the land, only then do we start to care for it, take care of it, and build a connection with the land.
Leopold and Snyder both display the need to restore the land and change man's perspectives about nature. Snyder states we should not break this "compact", a synergistic system, and be able to live "without causing unnecessary harm..to all beings" (Snyder, 4). However, Snyder and Leopold knows that within our society today, we need to look away from self-interests and economic profits. From here we can see Leopold's point of view as he states "a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided" (Leopold, 214). These are not "conservation" efforts because it displays the disregard towards all elements in the environment. To fully be educated in nature and to maintain it, one must walk because it is "the exact balance of spirit and humility" in order to be able to see the interdependence (Snyder, 19).
Leopold and Snyders way of thinking and evoking knowledge are similar, in the way that both of them think we need to change our behavior. Both authors promote the idea that we need to develop our language, and change the ways in which we go about living our day to day lives. Both authors agree that we need to redefine the way we use our words, wild,natual, wilderness, and such need to be rightfully distinguished and defined. Both authors believe that we have created far too large of a gap between the human race and nature, which clearly does not make sense since we are a part of nature. Overall, language is a large factor that these authors try to promote.
Post a Comment