People or Penguins

Victor Wong

We, human beings, as any other living being, do need natural resources in

order to live. However, currently, we are overexploiting the resources we have

available in a very irresponsible way, which creates a huge damage to the

ecosystem that is hard to heal. The modern world is demanding more and more

resources to satisfy our needs. It is clear that, in order to satisfy the increasing

demand, more resources need to be harvested from the nature. If we look at the

economical numbers for each industry today, we will see that, in many cases,

production has been increasing exponentially in the last years. Nevertheless, this

fast-pace growth is more harmful to the environment we live in than many of us

would have expected; especially because the negative impact is not correctly

measured or taken into account by the industry. Nature cannot recover itself from

the damage as fast as increment of the production rate.

William F. Baxter in his article “People or Penguins” mentions that,

according to some scientists, the use of DDT in food production is causing

damage to the penguin population. However, this argument does not follow his

people-oriented-criteria, which are:

1. Every person should be free to do whatever he wishes in contexts where

his actions do not interfere with the interests of other human beings.

2. Waste is a bad thing, so no resources should be wasted.

 3. Every human being should be regarded as an end rather than as a means

to be used for the betterment of another.

4. Both the incentive and the opportunity to improve his share of satisfactions

should be preserved to every individual.

Following Baxter’s criteria, environmental problems should be people-

oriented. Hence, he has no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake.

His way of thinking is, indeed, selfish. But he also offers several reasons that

support his position and why he rejects the proposition that we ought to respect

the “balance of nature” or to “preserve the environment” unless the reason for

doing so is the benefit of man.

Baxter continues that the first and most fundamental step toward solution

of our environmental problems is a clear recognition that our objective is not pure

air or water but rather some optimal state of pollution. Additionally, the costs of

controlling pollution are best expressed in terms of the other goods we will have

to give up to do the job. Once the trade-off relationship is clearly perceived, it is

possible to state in a very general way what the optimal level of pollution is.

It is true that all decisions regarding the environment that we make should

be good for human beings and favor their wellbeing. It is true that there is always

a trade-off in all our decisions; because, in order to get something, something of

equal value should be given in return. I also agree that no resources should be

wasted. However, in my opinion, Baxter’s arguments are too radical. I consider

his trade-off approach too human-centered, which could be considered as a win-

lose situation, where humans always win and nature always loses. Such a thing

as “optimal pollution” is only accepting that the planet is to be polluted anyways.

I believe that it is possible to develop sustainable growth models that favor

both human beings and nature. Otherwise, scarce resources will disappear from

the face of the earth in no time, as many flora and fauna specimens already

disappeared due to human negligence. Wild life extinction rate has skyrocketed

to alarming levels in recent years, and if the trend continues, human beings are

in danger of disappearing from Earth too!

Nature destruction in the name of modernization, development, and

progress has created a hell on earth in many locations in the world. Places that

used to be full of life are today just abandoned places where you can smell death

everywhere. The hand of the man is very powerful. He is the only animal in the

world capable of destroying his own home. That is why today we face huge

problems related to air pollution, water pollution, greenhouse gases emissions,

acid rain, etc. Just take a look at the history of the last 100 years and count how

many nuclear weapons have been developed and used.

I do think that governments should enforce and pass regulations so that

their natural resources are protected, and their use, well-administered. Failing to

do so, leads to irreversible consequences to Mother Nature. On the short or long-

run, not only nature but also human beings would be affected.

While writing this essay, I cannot help but think about my own country:

Peru. It has one of the most diverse flora and fauna in the whole world due to its
very diverse climate; it has 28 out of the 32 types of climates in the world.

However, the lack of planning and knowledge of the politicians, plus the reigning

corruption in the country played a very negative role in the economic situation. As

Don Antonio Raimondi, an Italian researcher that made of Peru his second

home, stated by the end of the 19th century: “Peru is a beggar sitting on a bench

of gold.” There are plenty of natural resources available, but they are not well

used. Fortunately for the Peruvians, the situation started to change in the last

decade, and nowadays Peru has a solid and steady economical growth. But its

economical model is based on extraction and exportation of raw material and

minerals. I wonder what the country would do when there were not more

minerals to extract. I know that that day is still too far to come, but it is real

possibility that may happen some day in the future.

Nonetheless, I can give some practical examples of how the Peruvian

government is managing the country’s natural resources. For instance, Peru has

one of the richest seas in the world. In order to protect the sea life from

indiscriminate extraction, the government has passed laws to establish certain

periods of extraction for the most extracted fishes. In this way, it is warranting the

reproduction period for the marine fauna, warranting the future availability of the

marine resources, creating a sustainable resource-extraction model and

punishing any attempt to practice illegal fishing.

Another example is that the government designated Natural Protected

Areas to protect the country’s unique wild life. In these areas we can find one of

the biggest tropical forests in the world. Currently, with its 66 million acres of
forests, it accounts as the second biggest in Latin America and the fourth biggest

in the world. These forests are very important to capture the greenhouse gases. 1

Nevertheless, the biodiversity of these Natural Protected Areas also suffers from

the illegal felling of trees and illegal hunting, which resulted in many endangered

species.

If we consider Baxter’s reasoning, those endangered species don’t matter

at all because they do not fit in his four criteria, and their presence or absence

does not affect human beings at all. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the

food chain will be affected if those endangered species definitely disappear from

the face of the earth. Furthermore, the natural life cycle will be also affected,

which in turn, will affect human beings at some point.

Another case comes from Brazil. Currently, Brazil has the biggest natural

reserve in the continent and, perhaps, the biggest in the world. However, the

country has been destroying forests because more lands were needed to

produce biodiesels. It is true that, by producing biodiesels, the use of oil would

decrease and the pollution level in the world may decrease. But, on the other

hand, everything is not as nice as it sounds since there are also disadvantages.

The prices of food increased due to fear of food shortages in the world.

Moreover, the size of the rain forest is also decreasing as more lands for

biodiesels are needed. Personally, I think this case presents a quite interesting

situation in which we can see a clear trade-off. Baxter would have chosen what

Brazil is doing right now because its implementation is good for the people and

1
http://www.ecoportal.net/content/view/full/70833
consequently is also good for the environment. Biodiesels are good for people

because they are cheaper than oil. Moreover, biodiesels are also good for the

environment because they generate an acceptable level of pollution as they

pollute less than oil.

To conclude, regardless if I, you, or whoever else, agree with Baxter or

not, I feel that the best way to address pollution issues in the world is the way

that creates a win-win situation in which both human beings and environment are

benefited. I believe in sustainable economical growth by using wisely the natural

resources each country has. If we take something from nature, we should give

something in return so that nature can continue giving us what we need. For

example, I remember that, when I was a kid, my primary school teachers used to

say: “For each tree you cut down, you should plant two trees.” Therefore, I took

part in a school program to reforest some hills with the seeds of the custards my

classmates and I consumed at home. Each custard fruit had many seeds inside,

and each seed turned into a big tree years later. This was my contribution to

Mother Nature for the things she gave me. Finally, on April 2 nd, 2009, I went to a

concert where, at some point, the band’s singer gave us a good reason to protect

the environment: “If you screw with nature, nature will screw with you!”

Contact Information:
Víctor Wong
http://lasaventurasdevitinho.blogspot.com
kblitz83@gmail.com
Twitter: @kblitz83