Searching for a Night Sky Ethic: Leopold and the Politics of Empathy
We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf.… In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack…. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down….We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes, something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.
--Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac[1]
Aldo Leopold, Photo courtesy of Iowa State University, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Aldo Leopold, author and conservationist, changed the day he saw the fierce green fire fade in those eyes. His empathy and compassion with the wolf is evident. He felt her suffering as he watched her die. There is remorse in his words and the passage reads almost as an apology to the animal. From that empathy sprang a new and lasting sense of right and wrong, a “land ethic.”
Leopold recognized that we are part of a larger community that includes “soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” and concluded that it is right to conserve our connection to that community. Leopold told us that a land ethic “reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility” for its health. As we struggle to protect what remains of beautiful, pristine night skies, it is clear that Leopold’s insights about our relationship with the land apply equally to the night. There exists a cosmological conscience and an individual responsibility to protect the quality of the night sky and access to all of the social, ecological, and emotional benefits it provides.
In slightly more than a year’s time, we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of “A Sand County Almanac.” The lessons from that text ring as true today as they did in Leopold’s time and are as relevant to the night sky as to the land. However, we have failed to incorporate night sky protection into the land ethic. In recent decades, astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, and philosophers have established our connection to the stars and galaxies we see in the night sky. The elements that make up our bodies were created in the cores of exploding stars. We are, as Carl Sagan once said, “made of star stuff.” Leopold taught us that if we recognize our connection to the natural world, environmental problems will be solved. Likewise, if we recognize our connection to the cosmos we will protect the night sky.
We understand the effects of light on human health and the environment. We weep over the loss of the cultural heritage that the stars represent, yet we still destroy the night sky. Light pollution is increasing at 2% every year and 80% of the world’s population lives under light polluted skies. For them the Milky Way is already gone. Outside of the Dark Sky Movement, few people miss it or even realize what they have lost. Few give a second thought to lighting up their yards, streets, and neighborhoods. We fail to consider the night sky when we decide what is right and what is wrong. We are searching for a night sky ethic.
Leopold realized that people are unlikely to make any decision that is not consistent with their own personal beliefs. He recognized that we abuse land because we treat it as a commodity that belongs to us, instead of a community to which we belong. In similar fashion, we fail to understand our connection to the night sky and treat this fragile resource as a dumping ground for excess light.
Arguments for protecting night skies often rely on the economic value of dark places. Increasing desire to see pristine night skies has created growth in astrotourism. Researchers have estimated that astrotourism will generate more than $5.8 billion over the next 10 years in the American west. These expenditures will result in $2.4 billion in higher wages and over 10,000 jobs each year.[2] Clearly there is an economic incentive to protecting night skies. However, Leopold looked askance at this argument. He believed that the need for an economic rationale for protecting the land and its resources was evidence that a land ethic did not exist. He argued that “birds should be protected as a matter of biotic right, regardless of the presence or absence of economic advantage to us.” Leopold urged us to examine our environmental decisions “in terms of what is ethically and esthetically right, as well as what is economically expedient.” This is true as well for night skies. Reliance on astrotourism and the economic benefits of protecting night skies indicates the lack of a night sky ethic. However, until a true night sky ethic evolves, I will happily rely on economics to support its protection.
Most environmental ethical theories argue that a precondition for ascribing moral consideration to nature is that it be considered intrinsically valuable. It’s clear that Leopold would embrace the idea that the night sky and human access to that resource have intrinsic value. That they have a “right to continued existence, and at least in spots, their continued existence in a natural state.” If the idea that a physical resource has rights seems a bit unorthodox, consider Ecuador and Bolivia. Bolivia’s 2011 Law of Mother Nature was the first national-level legislation in the world to bestow rights to the natural world. In Ecuador, the seventh chapter of its new constitution entitled “Rights of Nature” establishes the right its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structures, functions, evolutionary processes, and restoration. Even in the U.S., this idea has received serious consideration. In 1971, in Sierra Club v. Morton, Justice William O. Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club should be able to sue on behalf of inanimate objects such as land.
Leopold understood the path to a true land ethic was through countless individual decisions and actions affecting the environment. He concluded its creation and evolution was our own individual responsibility. As opposed to morals, ethics leans towards decisions based upon individual character, and an individual understanding of right and wrong. Morals, on the other hand are widely-shared communal or societal norms about proper behavior. Ethics reflect an individual assessment of values as relatively good or bad, while morality is a socially constructed assessment of what is good, right or just. Throughout his essay, Leopold emphasized the importance of individual ethics in solving the ecological problems of his day. He stated “if the private owner were ecologically minded, he would be proud to be the custodian of a reasonable proportion of such areas, which add diversity and beauty to his farm and to his community.” Later he noted that the answer to ecological destruction that he witnessed “if there is any, seems to be in a land ethic, or some other force which assigns more obligations to the private landowner…. An ethical obligation on the part of the private owner is the only visible remedy for these situations” Similarly, the development of a night sky ethic must be driven by changes in our personal beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Citizens, businesses, and governments all have a personal obligation to protect the night skies. Leopold’s mechanism for promoting a land ethic was straight forward -- “social approbation for right actions: social disapproval for wrong actions.”
Milky Way over South Park, CO Photo: F. Turina
One of the most compelling questions of our time and Leopold’s is how to get private land owners to do what is best for the environment and for society. Today, an increasing number of articles are linking environmental problems to the “politics of apathy” indicated by a lack of interest, involvement, action and concern. This condition was reflected in a recent article in Scientific American on light pollution and the loss of night skies that asked the poignant question: Does anybody care?[3] When an environmental issue is characterized by this type of apathy, there is no emotional engagement to change behavior. To a growing number of sociologists and political scientists, the recommended solution to apathy is an increased reliance on the politics of empathy. Studies have demonstrated that when individuals feel empathy towards nature and those affected by environmental degradation, they are more likely to engage in actions to protect environmental quality. The term empathy conservation[4] refers to individual environmental conservation decisions that are motivated by empathy toward nature, other fellow human and non-human beings, and future generations. Scientists define “empathy with nature” as a capacity to share the emotional experience of the natural world. An example is the ability to understand on a cognitive and emotional level the distress of an animal that is suffering. People who experience nature through this emotion are more likely to make ethical environmental decisions. In A Sand County Almanac, these feelings contributed to a new ethical framework for Leopold.
Based on recent research, scientists are calling for an empathy-based approach to addressing environmental problems. Studies have shown that “nudging for empathy” using messages calling for participants to consider how their actions might affect their neighbors led to increased conservation levels when compared to financial incentives alone. The researchers also found that “nudging for empathy using a frowney emoticon can be more effective than monetary punishment. Learning about negative emotions of the affected party leads to greater levels of conservation by the polluter than when receiving a monetary fine.”[5]
Framing personal environmental choices like installing night-sky friendly lighting in terms empathy is a promising way to create a night sky ethic. We know that all life on earth has evolved under a natural cycle of light and dark and that disrupting those rhythms causes harm to people and wildlife. It degrades natural systems. Explaining the effects of individual lighting decisions on our neighbors and wildlife populations and encouraging a sense of empathy with those affected, will result in greater protection of the night sky.
Capital Reef National Park Photo: F. Turina
However, as the night sky vanishes and fewer people experience truly dark skies, the foundation for the ethical care of this resource is lost. In a Sand County Almanac, Leopold noted that “we can be ethical only in relation to something we can see, feel, understand, love, or otherwise have faith in.” “It is inconceivable to me,” he wrote, “that an ethical relation to land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its [philosophical] value.” This is where those dedicated to protecting night skies shine. To create conditions for the evolution of a night sky ethic, we need to protect what we have. We need to expose as many people as we can to the stars; we need to inspire and educate. We need to create the foundations for a sense of empathy toward the night sky and the people and animals affected by its loss. Leopold recognized the value of efforts to spark this change stating that “the case for a land ethic would appear hopeless but for the minority which is in obvious revolt against these modern trends.” Revolt against wasteful, inefficient lighting! That’s how we nourish a night sky ethic.
With some resignation, Leopold ended his essay with the idea that progress and growth are inevitable, yet with hope that we can wield the tools of progress in a more ecologically friendly manner: “We shall hardly relinquish the shovel, which after all has many good points, but we are in need of a gentler and more objective criteria for its successful use.” This idea can be applied as readily to lighting as to the shovel. The solution to developing a gentler and more objective use of lighting lies in a night sky ethic. One that is based on compassion, empathy, and an understanding that our actions have consequences for our neighbors, wildlife, and the land.
[1] Leopold, Aldo. 1986. A Sand County Almanac 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[2] Mitchell, D., & Gallaway, T. (2019). Dark sky tourism: Economic impacts on the Colorado Plateau Economy, USA. Tourism Review, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-10-2018-0146
[3]Soko, J. (2022, October 1). The Sky Needs Its “Silent Spring” Moment—Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sky-needs-its-silent-spring-moment/
[4] Lynne, G., Czap, N., Czap, H., & Burbach, M. (2016). A Theoretical Foundation for Empathy Conservation: Toward Avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons. Review of Behavioral Economics, 3, 243–279. https://doi.org/10.1561/105.00000052
[5]Czap, N. V., H. J. Czap, M. Khatchaturyan, G. D. Lynne, and M. E. Bur-bach. 2012a. “Walking in the Shoes of Others: Experimental Testing ofDual-Interest and Empathy in Environmental Choice”. Journal of Socio-Economics. 41(5): 642–653.