People or Penguins:the Case for Optimal Polution

Baxter begins his argument against the possibility of less pollution by stating that if you are going to fight for something it is important to set a clear goal path. He states his criteria for his argument is first setting a goal, not wasting anything, every human should be regarded as an end not mean, people should preserve wealth. Baxter starts by stating that it would be irrelevant to say people should not put DDT in food because it harms penguins. He says according to his criteria he can only concern himself with human beings because that are the end. Penguins and trees have no say in the country so they do not get a vote, but what is good for humans will ultimately be good for him. He also addresses waste saying everything is put into context. If we want less pollution we have to live without other things. If we do not cut trees down than we cannot use the wood to build houses for homeless people. He also says that we cannot just make more money but that would be easier than making more goods. Every time we use goods we are taking them from another area where they can be used. He ends by saying we can not measure human happiness to the goals of pollution issues because each thing will be important to another and when you act for one you take away from another.

I think this is a pessimistic way to view the way things I work. I understand the realistic option may not always be idealistic but I think he takes it too far. Yes, what is good for humans will be good for animals and plants in the long run but it does not mean we can just do whatever to them and hope they turn out okay because we do. They are animals and they do not have a vote which means we have to care for them and try to preserve their beauty. To describe penguins as just "something that waddles on rocks" is a little ridiculous. They are living organisms that were put here by God to be a part of our ecosystem. Also, saying that by not cutting down trees we can not make houses for homeless people is an exaggerating. How many houses are we really building for the poor each day? We do not need to knock down entire rain forests to accommodate our poor and we do not. Tress are knocked down for a lot of selfish reasons before they are knocked down to house a homeless person. He phrased that to make it seem as though by saying you do not want to knock down trees you're turning your nose at the homeless but that is vastly exaggerated. It is true that by using goods for one project takes them away from another but the country is massive and everything is on such a large scale. If you earn the money for your cause you can come by the goods to benefit your cause. I do not think people can just not build dams because that wood might have been used for a hospital.