ROMEL Z. MARTINEZ
DR. FE PORCIUNCULA
EM 803 (Environmental Ethics and Values)

August 5, 2013

A Critique on

“Why Should the World Care About the Environment In
Places like Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Rwanda?”

By Sammy Stein

Mozambique is considered the watering well of Africa. Now, it has rivers that have withered and lands that are infertile.

Zimbabwe is once believed to be the bread basket of the world. Now, its fertile soil along with the magnificent assortment of plants and animals is shattered due to incompetent practice.

Rwanda is thought to have hazy mountain rain forests which are beneficial for mountain gorillas that dwell on them. Now, these gorillas are endangered because of illegal hunting.

People seem to think that nature’s wonders and resources are so abundant that their existence would last a lifetime. Anyone who thinks like this can be deemed as immature. This kind of thinking is just unacceptable. The wellbeing of every country has an effect on the wellbeing of the whole planet like the way a few harmful cells can contaminate the whole condition of the human body.

This is what the article generally talked about. It further supposed that if we want the world to continue its natural course then we should be mindful of the harmful effects of what we do to the surroundings not just in places like Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Rwanda but also in other places as they are all equally significant. What we do to our environment could bring about destructive consequences all over the planet. The article also cited the harmful effects of deforestation and illegal dumping of toxic materials.

The article was truthful in saying that deforestation only causes some lands to be infertile. It is inevitable for the rain to fall down on the deforested mounts. What happens is that lands get enveloped by the rocks which slide down together with this rain. This, in turn, makes the soil difficult to cultivate crops in. Few trees or none at all can dwell in this kind of setting. This situation could lead to lesser oxygen supply for mankind. The effects of deforestation are immense as there may be other plant species undiscovered in these deforested areas and studying them may create treatments to plenty of diseases. Thus, there is a need for people to take action regarding this matter.

Another problem that was raised in the article is the topic of illegal dumping of toxic materials and how this is fatal to the natural world. The article was also direct in saying that underdeveloped countries are used as a ‘dump’ by more affluent nations. It went on to say that as long as there is money involved, this act of illegal dumping of toxic materials will persist.

There is a voice in the article that demands that the populace take action regarding these lethal environmental wrongdoings although it does not say it directly. The voice speaks to the public not in a gentle, sugar-coated manner but one that is fierce and direct to the point. Nonchalance is the last thing that the author had in mind in presenting this truth to the readers.

The voice has an attitude towards the subject of deforestation, illegal dumping of toxic materials and incompetent management of lands that is courageous and honest by directly saying, “The habitat of these countries is precious and yet is being exploited as if it will never change. Its people remain ignorant of the damage they are doing.” The realization that one must take care of the surroundings and its impact on the over-all welfare of the earth was easily absorbed by the readers.

There are tons of articles like this found in print, broadcast and social media, each of them containing different approaches, techniques or gimmicks on presenting this sort of information regarding the current condition of the environment. Clearly, the topic is not unfamiliar to us all. The recurrence of articles such as this only goes to show that one is not taking enough action to solve the problem.

I have a high regard for the author of the article, exposing the truth about the environmental situations in Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Rwanda in an organized manner for the readers to fully understand. However, it could have been better if the author presented solutions to the problems and not just merely exposing them.

Or perhaps it was created that way, leaving it to the readers’ independent thinking?

The truth is already exposed. So when are we going to take action? This is what the voice of truly says – not in a form a whisper but with a voice that almost screams to death but is still unheard.

ROMEL Z. MARTINEZ

DR. FE PORCIUNCULA
EM 803 (Environmental Ethics and Values)

August 5, 2013

A Critique on
“PEOPLE OR PENGUINS”

By William F. Baxter

DDT or dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is believed to not only increase the risks of having serious illnesses on humans but this type of insecticide can also cause death on a variety of animals. In this article by William F. Baxter, it tackled about the use of this DDT in connection to the penguin population. It articulated that “the use of DDT in food production is causing damage to the penguin population. . . ” There is such peril that DDT brings.

DDT is found out to bring toxic materials to air and water and thus, detrimental to penguins. However, Baxter pointed out that the danger that it brings to penguins should not be the sole basis why banning the use of it should exist. Baxter continued to point out that this reason is valid only when it is ‘people-oriented.’ His criteria are “oriented to people, not to penguins,” so the article cited. He went on to say that raising environmental problems should be related to the needs and wants of the people. “I have no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake,” he mentioned in the essay.

There is a self-centered persona that Baxter projected in his essay. His voice was conceited in giving out his arguments. He furthermore stated that thinking in terms of the welfare of the people rather than the welfare of the animals will not bring about an environmental upheaval of sorts. As the reader delves deeper into the essay, the ‘selfishness’ of the author is exposed by his opinion of saying that we should not trust fully those people who let their voices be heard as they battle for the rights of animals or plants. There should be hesitance in believing what they have to say. It is quite difficult to decipher what message the author is trying to send across toward its reader. The essay swings from time to time talking about DDT insecticide, the penguin population or the general selfishness of humans. Baxter’s essay was persistent in carrying an anthropocentric perspective. His essay detaches each human being from the reality of his planet. As such, the very criterion that he sets is a criterion that reduces the resources of the earth as mere means to achieve the goals of the human beings. There is a problem, in this regard, for one can easily reject any attempt to save any endangered species if it does not fit in into the agenda that humans set for themselves. But he does make a good point though. The things that are beneficial for humans are all in all beneficial for the rest of the natural world if one thinks about it. What is good for humans also encompasses what is good for the animals and plants.

The sad reality is should we choose penguin (animal) over people?

What must we do now? There are many factors that we have to consider: social, economic, and political. But the ground with which we can base our moral discernment on the issue is the common concern of the survival of the human and non-human species. After all, the point of the matter is that we are all inhabitants of the earth.

The essay sustained an anthropocentric point of view. This perspective is seen as selfish, thinking of only human beings and not thinking of other species. Within the anthropocentric standpoint, the human beings are the only ones that matter. In this point of view, it appears that the other creatures or inhabitants of the earth are not given concern. The essay was a manifestation of mankind’s selfishness. It suggests not just choosing one over the other but provokes us to do actions which benefit everyone who dwells on our planet.