Question 1: Part A
The statistics given by Reynold give a rough estimation of the people’s consumption. However, the site where the information was retrieved from is not appropriate. This is because it is an extremists’ website; therefore, the information posted here is likely to be biased. The author could have used information from the World Health Organization or the Organization for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD). They reflect similar information, but are more reliable.
Reynolds argues that the planet has not yet exhausted its biocapacity as many environmentalists have led people to believe. As a good example, Canada has biocapacity reserves unlike other areas having deficits. In support of his argument, there are other areas with these reserves. Other regions such as South America, Scandinavia, Germany, just to mention but a few, have these reserves; thus, they are outstanding examples supporting this argument. However, some other regions such as China, the U.S, India, amongst others, suffer from biocapacity deficits. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the earth cannot hold any more life. It just means that there is an uneven distribution of the population, some areas being overpopulated while others hardly have any, a situation that can be corrected.
Singer does not support the cost-benefit analysis as a suitable method of arguing out the debate on saving the forest habitat versus saving human lives. This is because the cost-benefit analysis undermines or is not considerate of the ethical perspective of this issue. According to Singer, the economists conclude that the poor are considered less since their income plays a hugely insignificant role in reducing life-threatening risks. In other words, cost-benefit categorizes life, placing the wealthier people (industrialized countries) above the poorer ones (developing countries).
Lomborg states that Nicholas Stern’s suggestion of saving 97.5% of our wealth to the future generations is far-fetched. However, Lomborg has made an alternative suggestion. In reality, the actual savings for the future approximate to 15% although some argue that it is 20% while others say it is 10%. Lomborg suggests that the future must not be saved at the expense of the present. As people arrange to save for the future, they should as well take care of themselves as they represent the present.