Environment William F. Baxter Argues in Favor

Environment

William F. Baxter argues in favor of a people-oriented perspective on environmentalism in his article "People or Penguins." According to Baxter, measures to protect or conserve natural resources are only meaningful if they benefit human beings. In fact, the author asserts that concerns like clean air and water should be the means, not the end. Human beings, Baxter feels, are the end. Penguins and pine trees matter insofar as they please human beings, but they do not matter for their own sake. To support his arguments, Baxter first outlines four philosophical criteria by which he bases his observations about environmentalism. First, Baxter urges that all persons should do as they will as long as they do not "interfere with the interests of other human beings," (604). Second, Baxter notes that human beings possess limited resources, not just natural products like coal or water but also human labor resources. Therefore, we must take care to prevent wastefulness. Third, Baxter asserts that each person must be "afforded dignity" and an "even-handed application" of rules and laws (604). Finally, the author advocates the redistribution of wealth as a means to solving thorny problems such as the debate over environmental protection. In addition to these four criteria, Baxter also provides six reasons why selfishness is "the only tenable starting place for analysis," (605). These four fundamental criteria on which Baxter bases his argument are reasonable, sound, and morally unobjectionable, and I agree that "no other position" other than selfishness "corresponds to reality," However, Baxter's rhetoric fails to realistically address environmental problems caused by and, more importantly, affecting human beings.

Human beings don't always know what's best for them and don't always act intelligently. Whether with the environment or with international relations, people make stupid choices that often have far-reaching, disastrous consequences. Even as he acknowledges selfishness as an immutable part of human nature, Baxter fails to acknowledge its impact on political and economic decision making. For example, the author states that massive environmental degradation is virtually impossible because people depend on non-human life forms and would not deplete natural resources out of common sense (605). However, Baxter does not address demands for capital consumption and unlimited corporate growth that might undermine common sense and reason. Furthermore, precisely because the four types of resources (labor, technology, capital goods, and natural resources) are as limited as Baxter suggests, environmental laws are necessary for keeping corporate avarice in check and preserving what is indeed the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Baxter's utilitarian-like argument is unrealistic and idealistic. While it would be nice if we lived in a truly democratic society in which all decisions affecting large numbers of people were agreeable to the vast majority, reality tells another story. Baxter lambastes conservationists who claim to speak for the penguins and the pine trees, but he doesn't criticize politicians who claim to speak for "the people," or CEOs who claim to speak for their stockholders. Baxter's argument implodes; he believes that "no other position" but selfishness should govern human decision-making on the grounds that selfishness nearly always begets good results (for people). However, selfishness by definition neglects the good of the community. Selfishness limits which people will share what resources. If human beings are as selfish as Baxter claims, placing people before penguins could yield horrible consequences.

Baxter also lumps human beings together into a nebulous collective whole. Perhaps a sizable portion of the globe does believe that penguins are pretty to look at and should be preserved, that to ban DDT to save the penguins would in fact benefit human beings. However, an equally sizable number of people might feel otherwise, that the profits earned from DDT and the jobs the chemical creates far outweigh the beauty of penguins, which many people won't appreciate anyway because they don't live in Antarctica. Baxter pretends that "what is good" is an objective determination. In fact, individual and cultural differences add numerous conflicting nuances to the problem of environmental regulation. What some people find to be a reasonable trade-off, another might feel to be unworthy. In such a diverse and changing society, treating the environment as an end rather than a means to human happiness can potentially balance the needs of a heterogeneous population.