Savage Dreams and GasLand both provide examples of
situations where, when looking through the perspective of utilitarianism, the
actions being explained could be considered ethical since the benefit of some
is sacrificed for the benefit of many.
However, when looking through the perspective of the Land Ethic, we can
see that Solnit and Josh Fox are acting in the best interest of the land.
Savage Dreams poses an ethical challenge regarding the
Nuclear Test Site. Through the
perspective of utilitarianism, it can be argued that the actions at the Test
Site can be considered ethical because of the benefits from the nuclear
testing. The nuclear testing provides
valuable insight into nuclear warfare and nuclear energy that wouldn’t be
possible without the test site. However,
the Land Ethic supports Solnit’s (and the rest of the protesters) actions to oppose
the testing and try to prevent the nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain. The protesters are acting in the interest of
the land by working to eliminate the negative effects of the nuclear testing on
the land.
GasLand poses a similar situation. Since fracking provides cheap and relatively
clean energy in the form of natural gas, it can be seen as ethical through the
lens of utilitarianism since the benefit of only a few are sacrificed. However, the pollution and contaminated water
caused by fracking goes against the “integrity and stability of the biotic
community.” Fox is acting in the
interest of his homeland by raising awareness about fracking and trying to
prevent fracking in Pennsylvania.
Stickworks poses a different situation. Although the Stickworks project modifies the
ecosystem by using small trees and saplings, it does so in an environmentally
sustainable way. Since the project uses
only understory species that grow back very quickly, the project is actually in
the interest of the land. Also, the
project shows the unique and natural beauty that can be generated from
something as simple as sticks and trees.