Earth ethics is a holistic view of ecosystems. It involves a comprehensive vision of a biotic community that includes all of nature, not just the individualistic components that incorporate our environment. Supporters of the “land ethic” would make great efforts to sustain a threatened ecosystem. The individual components that make up the ecosystem do not worry supporters of this theory much; would argue that a threat to a single organism, even a protected or endangered one, should be assessed based on whether or not the protected or endangered species endangers the integrity of the entire system. A proponent of the land ethic argument would have consequences to weigh regarding the value of the threatened individual and how this relates to the survival of the individuals in the group. If the group were to suffer a threatening blow that could jeopardize the livelihood or existence of members of the control group, one would expect that the threatened organism could be assessed for possible “non-protection.” In contrast, an ethic of respect for nature believes that any animal or living organism should be protected because it deserves its own individual value; whether it is protected or endangered would be of little concern to these supporters. The mere fact that an individual is threatened is more than enough to justify great efforts to protect that individual entity. Followers of the ethic of respect for nature argue that every organism is worthy of protection because of an intrinsic value that gives that entity the right to protection from destruction. If society were to take both sides of this argument, there would be consequences. To adopt an ethical view of the land, our current use of the land for agriculture and livestock would change and our view of the conqueror of the land would change to a “biotic citizen” or member of the land community..