William Baxter, our environmental policies and the "optimal" level of pollution should be designed based on anthropocentric values. On his view, the "optimal state of pollution" is what best satisfies human interests and maintains human freedoms, irrespective of its effects on wildlife, plant life and the environment. As he contends, while such a perspective may lead to some environmental degradation, insofar as humans depends on the environment (for clean air, clean water, and other resources), our own self-interest will prevent us from ruining it. Still, environmentalist insist that to properly address climate change, we must place greater emphasis on protecting biodiversity even if it means that we, as humans, must make sacrifices in terms of the kinds of goods and services we consume. Relatedly, some environmentalists, like Fred Magdoff and John Foster, argue that our economic interests within a capitalist system may undermine sustainability efforts. On their view, capitalism emphasizes growth and expansion, whether this be expanding into new markets, new product lines, or even new regions. So, as soon as domestic markets are saturated, companies transition to doing business overseas. It is the ability of capitalism to produce such growth that enables it to generate increasingly higher levels of wealth. The problem is that such constant growth is at odds with the finitude of natural resources. As capitalistic systems grow, they deplete greater amounts of resources. Eventually, the expansion outpaces the rate at which resources are renewed, to the detriment of the ecosystem. For Mark Sagoff, the problem extends beyond simply capitalism. On his view, our economic preferences may be tension, and even contradict, our political and moral values. For example, as a consumer, I may purchase many goods and services that are bad for the environment (either because their production uses a lot of resources, or the company that produces them is energy inefficient). However, as a citizen, I may still advocate and promote eco-friendly legislation. As such, our anthropocentric values (e.g., to maximize human satisfaction), economic interests (e.g., to satisfy our personal demands at the lowest price), political values (e.g., to protect public safety and health), and our moral values (e.g., to avoid harming wildlife and the environment) may conflict with one another in ways that undermine our ability to address environmental issues. So, what do you all think? Which of our values should influence how we address environmental issues (e.g., anthropocentric, political, moral and/or economic values), and why? In answering this question, be sure to consider both (i) to what extent should economic values impact how we tackle climate change and (ii) do corporations, specifically, have a responsibility to contribute to that goal, even if it means changing their business model and/or undermining their pursuit of profits