Throughout the selected readings of Aldo Leopold in American Earth Environmental Writing Since Thoreau edited by Bill McKibben, a complication to the idea of conservation is raised. Leopold claims that the American “system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 285), and that ““in our attempt to make conservation easy, we have made it trivial” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 283). While Leopold does not completely disregard the use of conservation, he does raise several issues regarding its effectiveness at sufficiently preserving the natural environment. However, there are other authors within this anthology who disagree with Leopold’s view of conservation, and who disagree even further with each other. In particular, the texts of Theodore Roosevelt and Walt Whitman offer viewpoints that both clash with Leopold and each other, while also maintaining some agreements that link their differing strains of thought. By comparing all three angles, a broader and more complex view into the American tradition of conservation is created.
In his famous Speech at Grand Canyon in Arizona, on May 6, 1903, president Roosevelt made a passionate case for the continuation and expansion of conservation programs. After admiring the beauty of the Grand Canyon, he asked the audience “to do one thing in connection with it in your own interest and in the interest of the country — to keep this great wonder of nature as it now is.” (Roosevelt). Here, Roosevelt presents the conservation of the Grand Canyon—and by extension all natural wonders—as the ideal interest of both the individual and the community. Earlier in the speech, Roosevelt mentioned how he looked forward to the new irrigation act being “applied by and through the government,” but “still more as applied by individuals, and especially by associations of individuals, profiting by the example of the government” (Roosevelt). This view extends to his assertions for conservation; using federal action to provide opportunities for smaller communities and individuals. However, while Roosevelt puts emphasis on individual action, he also focuses on the broader communal benefits of conservation. In the crescendo of his speech he asserts that “we have gotten past the stage, my fellow-citizens, when we are to be pardoned if we treat any part of our country as something to be skinned for two or three years for the use of the present generation, whether it is the forest, the water, the scenery” (Roosevelt). This moment is the summary of Roosevelt’s convictions for the defense of conservation. He urges the individual to take accountability for the preservation of the land, while also expanding the picture of the impact of conservation beyond the present, to “your children, your children’s children” (Roosevelt). All in all, Roosevelt was a staunch believer in the power of conservation, which showed in his policy, as he set a presidential record for land set aside for conservation.
On the other hand, Walt Whitman, known for his idyllic descriptions of nature in the era of American Romanticism, takes a surprisingly anti-conservationist stance in his poem Song of the Redwood Trees. In the poem, Whitman describes hearing the sound of falling redwood trees as a dying chorus. Through this song the redwoods convey their acceptance of being cut down for human use, singing, “for them we abdicate, in them ourselves ye forest kings!” (Song of the Redwood Trees, Lines 39-40). The trees are so willing to be cut down that they even “pledge,” and “dedicate” themselves to “the new culminating man, to you, the empire new” (Song of the Redwood Trees, Lines 52-54), seemingly ecstatic to be used to expand human civilization. But why would these ancient beings, which Whitman compares to wise druids, look at the deforestation of their own species so positively? To Whitman, the answer lied in the creation of “the new society at last, proportionate to Nature” (Song of the Redwood Trees, Line 99). Through the voice of the dying redwoods, Whitman argued against conservation in favor of “Clearing the ground for broad humanity” in order “to build a grander future” (Song of the Redwood Trees, Lines 104-105). To summarize in prose, Whitman viewed the expansion of American territory and development of human settlements as a greater goal than the preservation of the natural environment. Whitman’s view is starkly opposed to both that of Roosevelt and Leopold, which reveals how widely opinions varied among progressives in the nineteenth century.
From the writings in American Earth, Aldo Leopold provides one of the most thorough and complex views of conservation; both in how it works and how to falls short. Like Roosevelt, Leopold believed that “our ability to perceive quality in nature begins, as in art, with the pretty” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 267), and therefore that preserving aesthetically pleasing areas, like natural wonders, is vital for humans to connect with nature. However, Leopold states that “all conservation of wildness is self-defeating” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 270), as the act of human intervention and admiration of the land takes away its inherent status as wild. Additionally, he criticizes the American model of conservation “based wholly on economic motives” as many essential “members of the land community have no economic value” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 283). Essentially, focusing a system of conservation around economic viability does not accurately address the vital and important habitats and organisms that provide little monetary value. It is for this reason that Leopold stated that “conservation still proceeds at a snail’s pace” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 281); but he did not completely give up hope in the practice. His solution was the implementation of a “land ethic, or some other force which assigns more obligation to the private landowner” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 285). This is similar to Roosevelt’s interest in the individual benefits of federal conservation, as both ideas center around private ownership. Leopold’s solution even encounters some similarities with Whitman’s thought, as he defines conservation as “a state of harmony between men and land” (A Sand County Almanac, Page 281), which is similar to Whitman’s ideal society proportionate to nature.
Ultimately, the issue of how to go about the conservation of land, and how to make conservation effective is a complex issue that has raised many different responses. From Roosevelt’s unshakable belief in the multilayered benefits of conservation programs, to Whitman’s abdication of conservation to human expansion, to Leopold’s proposed ethical revision of a flawed system, there has been much writing on the subject with little agreement. But through agreement and disagreement between these authors, the solutions to the conservation problem begin to expand. This expansion through comparison naturally raises the question as to what other authors have weighed in on issues of conservation; what else has been said in the wide cannon of environmental literature? Even within the single anthology of American Earth, there are dozens of other authors with unique opinions on the matter, all of which contribute new answers and complications to the issue. So, when encountering this time-tested problem in the environmental writings of others, it is best to keep these connections in mind to fully address the magnitude of what conservation means.