Talk:Northern Arizona University/Environmental Ethics/A Land Ethic

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Copyright issues[edit source]

Please could the person who posted the material on this page be clearer about its copyright status? I think this may be a breach of copyright, but it would be great if you could clarify this and show the materials can be published under the GFDL. McCormack 04:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some more info. No decision about the status. Will write the course teacher too.
Aldo Leopold (January 11, 1887 - April 21, 1948)
text from A Sand County Almanac, year 1948.
regarding Wikipedia's Copyright article (Copyright. (2007, September 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:14, September 7, 2007, from
"In most of the world the default length of copyright for many works is generally the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. Copyright in general always expires at the end of the year concerned, rather than on the exact date of the death of the author.
In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain.In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country ...
But if the intended exploitation of the work includes publication (or distribution of derivative work, such as a film based on a book protected by copyright) outside the U.S., the terms of copyright around the world must be considered. If the author has been dead more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain in most, but not all, countries. In Italy and France, there are wartime extensions that could increase the term by approximately 6 years in Italy and up to about 14 in France. Some works are covered by copyright in Spain for 80 years after the author's death."
One could come to the conclusion then, that since:
  • the book is from 1948 >1923
  • author died in 1948 => 1948+70=2018 >2007
  • regarding "works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain": this is unknown
it would be better/safer for Wikiversity that the course gives a link to the external website ?
Just to be sure I will also ask at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and tell the course teacher here in Wikiversity. ----Erkan Yilmaz (evaluate me!, discussion) 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this discussion through en:Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Without evidence that the material is in the public domain or released under the GFDL it should be deleted. Garion96 20:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got from a member of the Aldo Leopold Foundation Inc. following information:
The copyright to “A Sand County Almanac” by Aldo Leopold is held by Oxford University Press. The copyright is in effect until 2024. Please contact Oxford University Press for additional information.
Therefore removing the content and letting only the link to the external page, ----Erkan Yilmaz (my talk page, wiki blog) 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other talk[edit source]

Jacob Slade PHI 331 Aug. 29th, 2007 Critical Questions #1 Aldo Leopold makes the claim that one of the main reasons why most people have not developed a land ethic, is because the importance of such an ideal is not inherently within us. By claiming that in one of the highest moral contexts, religion, the land holds little to no importance, he is stating that religious beliefs don’t speak of protecting the land. “The proof that conservation has not yet touched these foundations of conduct, lies in the fact that philosophy and religion have not heard of it.” In this passage he is referring to loyalties, affections, and convictions when he says “these foundations”. Leopold is saying that when it comes to a person’s belief system, the most powerful determinants are that person’s religious and philosophical ideals. The problem with this statement is that many different religions speak of protecting the land as a way of striving to become a morally good person. Tikkun Olam is a phrase that is spoken in the Jewish religion quite often. It’s most basic translation is, “to protect the earth”. One thing that tends to occur when people begin to follow a religion though, is that person’s interpretation of the religious text can become skewed. It is a common trait in humans to essentially hear what they want to hear when listening to anything. That is my contention. Instead of Leopold blaming religion and philosophy for not addressing land ethics, it should be stated that people have the power to choose to listen or ignore certain aspects of their religion. Many people have chosen not to place as much importance on the land as they do on personal aspects of their morality. That is the power the religion wields. It is only the blueprint that guides people towards their own decisions regarding everything, and in this case many people have decided that protecting the land is not on the top of their list of priorities.

Ben Britton August 29, 2007 PHI 331 Critical Question #1

First paragraph of the Ethical Sequence… “This extension of ethics, so far studied, so far studied only by philosophers, is actually a process in ecological evolution. … An ethic ecologically is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation between social from anti social conduct. … (Ethics) has its origin in the tendency of interdependent individuals or groups to evolve modes of cooperation. Ecologist calls it symbiosis. Politics and economics are advanced symbioses in which the original free-for-all competition has been replaced in part, by co-operative mechanisms with an ethical content.”

I can understand how the ethics of land have changed and evolved much like the natural has. Leopold tells us that the ecological ethic is a limitation of freedom, but it is a conscious one. We know that some of us do now follow these innate ethics. For example, we ethically are bound to some stewardship of the land just so it will be fertile enough to grow food for us to eat. No matter how much we overlook the Earth’s abundance, we will never be able to overlook our dependence. This is one of the reasons we can never let a nuclear war happen, all of the land would be ruined. I have just read in my ENV 230 class that this justification of ethic is called utilitarian, in which the land has value because it benefits individuals economically or is a direct necessity for human survival. This is just the start of land ethic. An optimist see the potential, in not just sustaining the land, but letting enough go untouched so that it may grow to be something greater one day.

Evolution I have noticed to be driven by hardship. Man probably first learned how to walk because he ran out of food and had to move to another place. This eventually lead him to a less tree populated area in which he spent more time on the ground, crawling. Often evolution finds itself between a rock and a hard place. In the Book The Klamath Knot, the author explains how lichen came about. It was on the surface rocks cracked over time by water expanding and contracting. Neither algae of fungi could dominate the space, so somehow the co mingled and now lichen exists. This symbiosis of organism created the blue green algae which are found on almost every environment on Earth. Leopold states the Political and Economical world are robot like machines with artificial intelligence know as ethics content (...replaced in part, by co-operative mechanisms with an ethical content.”) Since when does the market place or the government have any ethics? True, democracy consist of many interdependent branches that function as a whole, but as long as we have one man/woman as head of the country there shall always be a knot is the symbiotic relationship of the political world, making it harder for any evolution to occur.

Kimberly Cook August 30, 2007, Environmental Ethics Critical Question #1 In response to Jacob Slade:

In response to critical question # 1 I would like to refer to the point where Leopold states “The answer, if there is any, seems to be in a land ethic, or some other force which assigns more obligation to the private landowner.” This text describes how Leopold believes the one solution to immature or underdeveloped land ethics is through the individual. The questions referred to by “The answer,” are asking if the government of a society where conservation requires monetary incentive will find trouble inevitably. He is saying the responsibility of conservation belongs to the individual, “private landowner” and not the government or religion. In this portion of The Land Ethic text he indicates there are economic undertones to American conservation. He also identifies a problem in a democracy which allows its government to be responsible for the conservation of land. Leopold goes on to say, “An ethical obligation on the part of the private owner is the only visible remedy for these situations.” This reaffirms his belief that it is the individuals’ responsibility to conserve the land beneath his feet.

These quotes lead me to discuss how Leopold was not blaming religion or philosophy for lack of land ethics. He was simply stating that the land is not given ample credit; a land ethic has not yet been adequately addressed by anyone, even religious figures and philosophers. Leopold emphasized that a single land owner should take on conservation regulations, but also assume the main responsibility for conservation. As far as protecting the earth goes it is not common to see religious rights campaigns integrating conservational ideas. Referring to the religious reference there are many things spoken or written that are not applied i.e. the references in Exodus of the Old Testament to slavery. Exodus 20:17"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Though this has been said and read, it was certainly not practiced by all those who believe in the Old Testament. Today a majority of the people having faith in the Old Testament would still not have slaves. Point being although someone has faith and believes in a religious text doesn’t mean they practice all things in the text. Therefore they are not credited for practicing conservation just by talking about it as they are not punished for having slaves though their religious text may says it’s ok.