The article, American Forest Policy-Global Ethical Tradeoffs, addresses the issue of global increases in timber demand, especially within the United States, coupled with the decrease in timber production and forest cultivation within the U.S., and the potential solutions that may remedy the growing timber dilemma. The authors propose several solutions and discuss their potential benefits and costs, but overall, voice their preference of establishing forest plantations and practicing intensive forest management. The article is written is a very straightforward, factual way that is aimed at the general public, in an attempt to have them understand the unintentional hypocrisies of their actions of advocating reduced logging while still importing
…show more content…
Americans claim to be concerned about the effects of deforestation and U.S. environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council are quick to chide other countries that heavily practice logging and export timber to other countries, yet the U.S. is the world’s largest importer of wood products! The U.S. is caught in an ethical crosshairs; while we may have reduced our logging rate and the associated ecological damage, we are still “exporting pollution” (Adams) to the countries we import from, some of which are vulnerable developing countries. In this case it is arguable that the population of the U.S is acting with ethical egoism. As defined by VanDeVeer and Peirce, ethical egoism suggests that “each person ought to act in such a manner to promote her or his self-interest” (15). By showing no concern about the potential effects of global deforestation on to less developed countries and promoting environmental activism at home, the U.S. is fully embracing the words of VanDeVeer and Peirce when they stated that ethical egoism involves “placing non-instrumental value on only the wellbeing and aims of the agent, and in effect no value on anyone’s wellbeing” (VanDeVeer & Peirce p …show more content…
I would be much more persuaded by their argument if they provided more concrete evidence like data, literary analysis, or secondary scientific articles to support their point. Additionally, there will never be one alternative that does not offer some tradeoffs, but the authors neglect to mention any potential cons associated with their preferred alternative, and thus it is possible to argue that their alterative could negatively impact the local environment by altering the ecosystem from its natural function to timber production. Plus, for their plan to fully work as they intend it, they suggest changing the Multiple-Use-Sustained-Yield-Act to allow for greater acreage to be devote to timber, which would alter the law that seeks to ensure that for every acre devoted to private timber crops, there is another acre for recreation, wildlife, water, livestock and ect. Thus some public goods and land usage could be diminished for public and private use in addition to incurring ecological damage with the author’s proposed
Americans claim to be concerned about the effects of deforestation and U.S. environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council are quick to chide other countries that heavily practice logging and export timber to other countries, yet the U.S. is the world’s largest importer of wood products! The U.S. is caught in an ethical crosshairs; while we may have reduced our logging rate and the associated ecological damage, we are still “exporting pollution” (Adams) to the countries we import from, some of which are vulnerable developing countries. In this case it is arguable that the population of the U.S is acting with ethical egoism. As defined by VanDeVeer and Peirce, ethical egoism suggests that “each person ought to act in such a manner to promote her or his self-interest” (15). By showing no concern about the potential effects of global deforestation on to less developed countries and promoting environmental activism at home, the U.S. is fully embracing the words of VanDeVeer and Peirce when they stated that ethical egoism involves “placing non-instrumental value on only the wellbeing and aims of the agent, and in effect no value on anyone’s wellbeing” (VanDeVeer & Peirce p …show more content…
I would be much more persuaded by their argument if they provided more concrete evidence like data, literary analysis, or secondary scientific articles to support their point. Additionally, there will never be one alternative that does not offer some tradeoffs, but the authors neglect to mention any potential cons associated with their preferred alternative, and thus it is possible to argue that their alterative could negatively impact the local environment by altering the ecosystem from its natural function to timber production. Plus, for their plan to fully work as they intend it, they suggest changing the Multiple-Use-Sustained-Yield-Act to allow for greater acreage to be devote to timber, which would alter the law that seeks to ensure that for every acre devoted to private timber crops, there is another acre for recreation, wildlife, water, livestock and ect. Thus some public goods and land usage could be diminished for public and private use in addition to incurring ecological damage with the author’s proposed