In the essay the author, William F. Baxter, held the view that environmental issues should be human-centered and cost beneficial. In other words, his observations are that our effect on the environment is irrelevant except as it affects human interest. He also feels that we have no obligation to respect the balance of nature because no natural state of nature exists. Baxter 's main goal was to have an "optimal state of pollution" which means an amount of pollution that yields the highest amount of human satisfaction. Baxter used the example of the use of DDT hurting the penguin population. His thoughts were that we, as a human race did not halt the use of DDT for the penguin 's sake but rather for our own enjoyment. People like watching penguins "walk about on rocks" and to see them is more important than using DDT. Baxter 's observations of environmental problems are people oriented, he has no interest in saving penguins for their own sake. Although Baxter stated that when people act as if each person represents one unit of importance is undeniably selfish, it is the only starting place for analysis. He felt that this is the way we really think, or "correspond to reality." One example he used was that we as humans are surrogates for plant and animal life. The point being that clean air is important to humans for their own sake, yet the penguins and pine trees will benefit from this desire. Another example Baxter used in substantiating his position was that if one person is
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Sustainability has become a relevant word in the vocabulary of many organizations, governments and individuals. More than just a word, sustainability relates to the ability of institutions to continue executing their functions without forgetting the effects on the environment and taking into consideration the fair treatment of their employees and the human rights of society. Although sustainability is a widely used term by many individuals, the understanding of this term is not as clear as its popularity. When discussing the ideas of sustainability, most people automatically associate the term with the human impact on the environment. Others relate sustainability to the ability to cut costs and inefficiencies within the organization. A few individuals believe that sustainability is a matter of human rights. So what exactly is sustainability?
The biosphere consists of a compound infusion of gases; the main components are oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. The concentration of these gases have been changing for many years. For the most part, this is influenced by human activity. In a persistent effort to improve the quality and longevity of life, humans (particularly in industrialized societies) have tendencies to negatively impact the environment, and at the same time, we strive to replenish what we have nearly depleted to balance the scale.
Environmentalists worry so much about the well-being of the planet for merely the human species’ survival. Things such as natural disasters, which reasons.org say “Part of that response acknowledges that the forces behind these ‘natural disasters’ play a critical role in Earth’s capacity to support life.” If people are so concerned about the planet, then people should realize that these natural disasters actually help the Earth regenerate itself. Without these natural ‘disasters’, the planet would not be how it is today. As Nash continues to criticize humans, he states, “...capitalist-driven culture in its cancer-like tendency to self destruct.” Pollution and destruction of wildlife is a problem, but it is something that can be fixed, or having Earth fix itself. Nash is saying that humans are destroying the planet entirely, which is kind of ridiculous. If people were really destroying the Earth as much as Nash says, Earth itself would have already gotten rid of people through things like natural disasters, disease, or natural selection. The Earth will take care of itself and as Tom Haering says, “Nature plays no favorites: Survival of the fittest.”
William Baxter addresses the issue of pollution, using a human-oriented method by which all value assigned to flora and fauna is dependent on each entity’s benefits to humans. In this essay I will briefly explain Baxter’s anthropocentric approach, attempt to show the flaws in Baxter’s arguments, examine his possible recourse after revisiting these points, and then conclude by restating my stance regarding the importance of flora and fauna and the immorality of environmental pollution. Pollution is immoral not only because we have a duty to preserve the
1. Look at print resources and non-print resources, critically analyzing sources for their quality of material Use your critical reading skills!
In the introduction of Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston’s book , Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, the authors explain the basic concepts of ethics: more specifically environmental ethics, and how they apply to everyday life. The main concepts discussed include moral agents, moral patients, anthropocentrism, weak or broad anthropocentrism, indirectly morally considerable, and directly morally considerable. These concepts are the foundations to the environmental ethics that Light and Rolston wrote about; however, in regards to the short story written by J. Lanham titled: “Hope and Feathers: A crisis in birder identification,” the two terms most predominately relating to the text are moral patients and moral agents. Lanham, in this text, describes the epitome of what it means to be a good moral agent, as interpreted by Light and Rolston, where others failed.
The essay opens up with McKibben talking about how the political campaign against global warming is flawed because at our current point there is nothing much that can be done to fix it.(Mckibben,1) He then goes to state that humans are the biggest culprit behind global warming and supports this by giving examples such as SUVs and American ignorance.(2,9) He concludes by saying that if ten percent of America were to go green, it still would not save the planet, but ten percent could get the government’s attention to pass laws making everyone go green. (11)
Another very crucial environmental issue, besides global warming, involves the finite nature of natural re, which are being depleted faster than their replenishment rates. The development model of the 20th century, which promoted the continuous consumption of products, has resulted in the reduction of agriculture land, food, water re as also fossil fuels. If humanity continues to consume fossil fuels at the same rate as today, oil re will run out by 2030, gas by 2040 and coal by 2200. By 2025, the number of people suffering due to water stress will rise to approximately 3.5 billion and almost half the world’s population is expected to experience high water stress by
The average human being, multiplied by the Earth’s population, would need to have about four Earths just to supply enough resources (Footprint Calculator). Thinking of people around the world, the people of the United States seem to take a lot of their life for granted. Many people when they hear of the polar ice caps melting wave it off and either don’t believe in it or believe it is not their problem. Well it is their problem and if we don’t jump on the issue soon we will not be giving our future generations much of a life. This brings me to the idea of sustainability. A simple description of the word means that what we have today we will also have tomorrow, next week, next year, or even the next lifetime. Although that is the modest version sustainability is much, much more than just that. Sustainability is derived from three main parts of the human life: environmental, social, and economic. Each being just as important as the other. Environmental is the most well-known aspect of sustainability in human life, but both social and economic take their place in keeping this Earth sustainable.
Living in a highly industrialized world that is ruled by capitalism, the concern for the environment often takes a back seat. Individuals or companies nowadays prioritize achieving optimal profit without putting into mind what their respective actions or productions may have an effect on the environment. They do not realize how important the role of our environment plays in the quality of human life. We can say that a good environment leads to a better quality life, while a bad environment could lead to a harmful and unproductive life. Now, it becomes unfair and unjust when the risks and costs of a company affect a certain group of people and on the opposite side of the spectrum another group of individuals enjoy the benefits without costs. The individuals that are affected badly are usually from Third World Countries where the distribution of risk and costs are not even (Low and Gleeson 1999). This is where Environmental Justice comes in. Environmental Justice mainly concerns the welfare of human beings (Low and Gleeson 1999). Talking about cities where capitalism surges from, it has been argued that these cities are ‘unfairly structured’ (Low and Gleeson 1999). Basically, what this is saying is that the wealthier you are, the better or cleaner the environment. On the other hand, if you are poor, then the environment around you will have more health risks. This kind of injustice or disparity is what adds fuel to the fire of environmental justice. In
Nearly everything that a human does is in response to the environment. Our lives are defined by what is around us and what we find in front of us, whether this means accepting, dealing with or changing it. This has been the pattern since primates first stood up and became Homo erectus, and has continued until we considered ourselves doubly wise. The shape of the land affected where humans moved. Weather was something with which to contend. Fire affected humans until they conquered it – and herein lies the core of the relationship. The earth affects humans, and humans affect it back, viewing characteristics and patterns as problems and challenges, and finding a solution.
Global Warming is the number one concern threatening the very existence of humans and everything within the environment today. The human race is to blame for the destruction of the natural world. The environmental issues that are threatening all human and non-human life today, started in the industrial revolution and the discovery of oil The need to improve the quality of life resulted in the construction of factories to mass produce products for consumers. These factories were powered by fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. The combustion of these fossil fuels emitted great quantities of pollutants that remain in the Earths atmosphere to this day and is the number one cause of global warming. However, in ethics one cannot evaluate just one thing. In ethics, as in nature, everything is connected to everything else (Partridge, 1998).
Environmental problems are something which belongs to nature or known as “Mother Earth” . Nature was created to help people survive from gathering foods until build a house. This phenomenon happens continuously without thinking how much damage that nature has because human’s fault. Nature gradually becomes worse and animal’s life in danger. People who are aware of the importance of nature react. Those people do several ways to save the environment. Although these efforts can return back the environment, these efforts only can be hold temporarily. This problem happens because those people who are aware of the environment only slightly; for remaining, there are people either do not know or do not care about the nature. People’s efforts
According to Mintzberg, the environmental school of thought is a strategy dealing with the forces outside the organization. Unlike the other schools in his book, Strategy Safari, the environment plays a central role in the strategy formation process alongside leadership and the organization where the organization becomes subordinate to the external environment. The environmental school assumptions are that during the formative period of the organization the company shapes itself in response to the environment, but after that period is increasingly unable to respond to the environment. Moreover, the organization long term survival depends on the early choices made during its formative period. Over time, Mintzberg states, leadership becomes