scholarly journals Is Aldo Leopold’s “Land Community” an Individual?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta L. Millstein
Keyword(s):  
Community Ecology ◽  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Ecological Theory ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Land Ethic ◽  
Biotic Community ◽  
Community Or ◽  
Community Concept ◽  
Land Community

The concept of “land community” (or “biotic community”) that features centrally in Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic has typically been equated with the concept of “ecosystem.” The author argues that we need to rethink Leopold’s concept of land community. First, Leopold’s views are not identical to those of his contemporaries, although they resemble those of some subsequent ecologists. Second, the land community concept does not map cleanly onto the concept of “ecosystem”; it also incorporates elements of the “community” concept in community ecology. Third, the question of whether land communities have boundaries can be addressed by an analysis of land communities as individuals. There are challenges to be worked out, but the author argues that these challenges can be resolved. The result is a defensible land community concept that is ontologically robust enough to be a locus of moral obligation while being consistent with contemporary ecological theory and practice.

Perturbation Experiments in Community Ecology: Theory and Practice

Ecology ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward A. Bender ◽  
Ted J. Case ◽  
Michael E. Gilpin
Keyword(s):  
Community Ecology ◽  
Theory And Practice

Metaphorical and Literal Groundings

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-352
Author(s):  
Anna Cook ◽  
Bonnie Sheehey ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Ethical Standard ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Ethical Responsibility ◽  
Land Ethic ◽  
Indigenous Knowledges ◽  
Indigenous Philosophy ◽  
Ethical Approaches

Accounts of grounded normativity in Indigenous philosophy can be used to challenge the groundlessness of Western environmental ethical approaches such as Aldo Leopold’s land ethic. Attempts to ground normativity in mainstream Western ethical theory deploy a metaphorical grounding that covers up the literal grounded normativity of Indigenous philosophical practices. Furthermore, Leopold’s land ethic functions as a form of settler philosophical guardianship that works to erase, assimilate, and effectively silence localized Indigenous knowledges through a delocalized ethical standard. Finally, grounded normativ­ity challenges settlers to question their desire for groundless normative theory and practice as reflective of their evasion of ethical responsibility for the destruction and genocide of Indigenous communities.

scholarly journals Health justice in the Anthropocene: medical ethics and the Land Ethic

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (12) ◽  
pp. 791-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair Wardrope
Keyword(s):  
Human Health ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
Land Ethic ◽  
Natural Systems ◽  
Environmental Threats ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Land Community

Industrialisation, urbanisation and economic development have produced unprecedented (if unevenly distributed) improvements in human health. They have also produced unprecedented exploitation of Earth’s life support systems, moving the planet into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene—one defined by human influence on natural systems. The health sector has been complicit in this influence. Bioethics, too, must acknowledge its role—the environmental threats that will shape human health in this century represent a ‘perfect moral storm’ challenging the ethical theories of the last. The US conservationist Aldo Leopold saw this gathering storm more clearly than many, and in his Land Ethic describes the beginnings of a route to safe passage. Its starting point is a reinterpretation of the ethical relationship between humanity and the ‘land community’, the ecosystems we live within and depend upon; moving us from ‘conqueror’ to ‘plain member and citizen’ of that community. The justice of the Land Ethic questions many presuppositions implicit to discussions of the topic in biomedical ethics. By valuing the community in itself—in a way irreducible to the welfare of its members—it steps away from the individualism axiomatic in contemporary bioethics. Viewing ourselves as citizens of the land community also extends the moral horizons of healthcare from a solely human focus. Taking into account the ‘stability’ of the community requires intergenerational justice. The resulting vision of justice in healthcare—one that takes climate and environmental justice seriously—could offer health workers an ethic fit for the future.

scholarly journals ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE BIOTIC COMMUNITY

ÈKOBIOTEH ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 472-477
Author(s):  
G.S. Rozenberg ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Population Genetics ◽  
Community Ecology ◽  
Neutral Theory ◽  
Patch Dynamics ◽  
Species Structure ◽  
Biotic Community ◽  
Temporal Aspect

Community ecology studies the patterns of changes in biodiversity, species structure, and the number of individual populations in a spatial and temporal aspect. The article discusses some modern theories of community ecology (neutral theory, patch dynamics, M. Vellend's ideas about four basic processes in communities similar to processes of population genetics [selection, drift, dispersal, selection], etc.).

scholarly journals Unifying the Basic Models of Ecology to Be More Complete and Easier to Teach

BioScience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (5) ◽  
pp. 415-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarence Lehman ◽  
Shelby Loberg ◽  
Adam T Clark ◽  
Daniel Schmitter
Keyword(s):  
Community Ecology ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Exponential Growth ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Ecological Theory ◽  
Graphical Form ◽  
Logistic Growth ◽  
Unified Approach

Abstract Population and basic community ecology are commonly presented to students through a set of distinct models, such as those for exponential growth, logistic growth, competition, predation, and so forth. This approach mirrors the historical development of the field, but it has several shortcomings as a way to present ecological theory. First, the classical equations can appear disconnected from one another. Second, differences in the parameters and styles of the equations do not lend themselves to comparison in a common graphical form. And third, the set of equations as they are commonly presented provides no easy way to see whether any concepts are left out. In fact, something is left out that is not commonly taught: the concept of faster-than-exponential growth approaching a singularity, which is important for understanding rapidly growing systems. In the present article, we demonstrate a unified approach that simplifies the traditional equations of ecology, expands their scope, and emphasizes their interconnections.

scholarly journals What Do Ecological Paradigms Offer to Conservation?

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Som B. Ale ◽  
Henry F. Howe
Keyword(s):  
Species Richness ◽  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Community Composition ◽  
Carrying Capacity ◽  
Island Biogeography ◽  
Ecological Theory ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Logistic Growth ◽  
Theory Of Island Biogeography ◽  
Conservation Plans

Ecological theory provides applications to biodiversity management—but often falls short of expectations. One possibility is that heuristic theories of a young science are too immature. Logistic growth predicts a carrying capacity, but fisheries managed with the Lotka-Volterra paradigm continue to collapse. A second issue is that general predictions may not be useful. The theory of island biogeography predicts species richness but does not predict community composition. A third possibility is that the theory itself may not have much to do with nature, or that empirical parameterization is too difficult to know. The metapopulation paradigm is relevant to conservation, but metapopulations might not be common in nature. For instance, empirical parameterization within the metapopulation paradigm is usually infeasible. A challenge is to determine why ecology fails to match needs of managers sometimes but helps at other. Managers may expect too much of paradigmatic blueprints, while ecologists believe them too much. Those who implement biodiversity conservation plans need simple, pragmatic guidelines based on science. Is this possible? What is possible? An eclectic review of theory and practice demonstrate the power and weaknesses of the ideas that guide conservation and attempt to identify reasons for prevailing disappointment.

The Ethics of Sustainability

1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Stanley R. Carpenter ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resource ◽  
Moral Obligation ◽  
Resource Depletion ◽  
Edmund Burke ◽  
Aldo Leopold ◽  
Biotic Community ◽  
Natural Resource Depletion

I argue that irreducible multiple conceptions of moral obligation may be found in efforts to define "sustainability." Individualistic ethics currently dominate and will probably continue to shape discussions of natural resource depletion. Non-individualistic, organic ethics (such as defended by Edmund Burke), which focus on entire generations of humans, are useful for overcoming problems of intergenerational identification. Finally, however, an expansion of the purview of ethics to the entire biotic community, as suggested by Aldo Leopold, represents a third scale of concern and obligation. By means of an articulated, scalar bequest package, incorporating each of these disparate foci, I outline a hierarchical ethic of sustainability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document