I really enjoyed reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring because it is a book that actually affected change. After reading Silent Spring, many Americans heeded Carson's advise and reduced their usage of broad-spectrum pesticides and Congress passed the Endangered Species Act. Silent Spring was published in an era when biology was not considered nearly as important as chemistry or physics. The emphasis was on constructing things as large and as quickly as possible. The scientific culture of the post Cold War period focused on America as a supreme power over everything: including the natural environment. Carson began to change this way of thinking when she presented evidence that pesticides can cause some types of cancer and do irreparable damage to many vital organisms.
I found it interesting that Silent Spring had a sort of poetic feel to it even though Carson still presents many statistics and facts. I think this is because she truly cared about what she was trying to convey to her readers and this passion showed in her writing. The fact that she was personally struggling with cancer and yet did not let that slow her down from her work shows her dedication to spreading the word about environmental degradation.
Ellyse
The first reading was an introduction to Rachel Carson’s work, Silent
Spring, by Linda Lear. Lear describes Carson’s revolutionary life and
struggles in a man’s world. Targeting the general public with her
work and submitting work only with her initials put her on an almost
even playing field with male scientists. In fear of technology moving
faster than man’s morality, Carson challenged the government to take
action.
The second chapter of Carson’s book titled “The Obligation to Endure”
touched on many topics of pesticide use as Lear’s introduction
addressed. Carson believed that the natural world and its inhabitants
adjust over time, naturally. Yet, in the modern world, life does not
have time to adjust. The radiation of nuclear bombs and humankind’s
chemicals is not natural and takes radiation to a new level. Carson
addresses humanity’s war against nature’s “pests” as ludicrous and
holds human beings as accountable. Furthermore, she describes a
spiral since DDT that we are creating a new evolution of insects
because they become immune to the chemicals and we increase them and
the cycle continues. Why doesn’t anyone say something? We are risking
the mutation of our own genes, for what? In addition, I really like
the quotation at the end of the chapter that reads: “the obligation to
endure gives us the right to know.” We should not stand by while
important decisions about the fate of the world are put in the hands
of government officials who are ignorant of the consequences of what
they are doing.
The final section, the afterword, by Edward O. Wilson emphasizes how
Silent Spring really jumpstarted the environmental revolution. He
gives Americans a little bit of an excuse for being so careless with
chemicals when he addressed the Cold War. During this time Americans
were rewarded for science and technology and were almost unpatriotic
to question it. I agree with Wilson in that because of its timeless
nature, the book will always be regarded and looked back on. Carson
was truly a pioneer in American Environmentalism.
Soraya
I loved reading these sections of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring for a number of reasons. I appreciated the intro because, aside from the obvious fact that her book inspired the environmental movement, I knew very little about Carson herself. It was interesting to me that she had grown up influenced by her nature loving mother but had intended to major in english. Though it makes complete sense to me now, I had never thought about the impact Carson had on the sciences themselves, raising the respect for the study of biology. Lastly, it was inspiring to hear that Carson finished writing her book while battling breast cancer. Her book has always been an inspiration to me from an environmental perspective, but reading the intro and afterward made me truly appreciate Carson herself for her dedication and determination to the study of biology and her use of poetic language which helped her to relate and appeal to the general public.
ReplyDeleteAs for the text itself, there were several arguments from Silent Spring that I found to be extremely strong. I loved that Carson explained that the bug problem was a problem BECAUSE human agriculture had become so grand and specialized that it encouraged the breeding of such pests. And that the attempt to exterminate red ants was a complete fail, doing nothing but reeking havoc on the environment for years and years. It was also impressive that Carson did not call for an end to the use of pesticides, simply for the use of safer products approved by scientists. I felt Carson did a wonderful job at explaining the complicated workings of dangerous chemicals in a simple, concise manner that the average citizen could understand. Carson's book was a very influential one that inspired various programs and movements for change, but there is still MUCH, MUCH to be done.
This author is a biologist, who thinks that the environment has a very serious connection with human, especially with our health. She thinks that human’s health can somehow reflect the environmental illness. I think she is a person who is very respectful to the nature. I mean she thinks that it is our responsibility to take care of our environment. In the first chapter in the book, the author describes a town where there is no voice in the spring, because there are no living animals in the spring in that town and there is no fish in the river, indicating that is a dead town. The author said that town was just be described by her but it did not really exist. However she thinks that there is somewhere like that place. Author thinks that is because of human actions. I deem that the author wants to attract people to pay more attention on the environment. In her second chapter, she talked about the obligation of endurance. She talked about the pollution, and how pollution affects the environment and surroundings. She mentioned the chemical pollution as the example. She believed that chemical pollution not just destroys the environment but also threats the human life. In her mind, there is a balance on the earth since the earth took long time to form the surroundings on the earth. After I read her some pages of her article and forward, I really think that we should pay more attention on biological pollution and our environment in order to protect out earth and other species.
ReplyDeleteI found Carson's "Silent Spring" very thought-provoking. For a long time, I've know about the purpose of pesticides, but I never thought to think about the harsh effects that pesticides have on the environment. Reading "Silent Spring" made me feel extremely ignorant-- especially when it comes to the environment. I thought that Carson made an excellent point when about in the middle of the 2nd chapter she reasoned that pesticides could be deemed necessary when it became a matter of life and death. I definitely do not live in an area where life-threatening diseases such as malaria are a common threat to my life, so why invest so much on something that abuses the environment in the way that it does? Simply because of my own discomfort? I also really liked that someone who was often seen in the scientific world as an "outsider" who made such a case with the injustice of artificially-caused harm to the environment.
ReplyDeleteLike Soraya, I found Carson's quote, “the obligation to endure givesus the right to know" particularly eye-catching and important. I think
ReplyDeletethe idea of this quote was fundamental to her success in gaining attention and popularity, even as a woman in a relatively naive population. By making the reader feel like he or she has been wronged and providing for them the way to make up for this, Carson instantly wins over her audience. Although this was certainly not the most interesting part of Carson's amazing story (namely her ability to fight sexism, cancer and ignorance), I believe it is the reason we know of her story at all, which is exactly why she used it.
I personally found the introduction to be a key part of this article. It is important to know Rachel Carson's background in order to understand the full impact of what she contributed to society. It is unbelievable to me how unaware society was prior to Rachel Carson's contributions. Now it seems so logical that pesticides are awful for the environment it's hard for me to understand why people didn't know this before. The fact that she was having so many struggles in her own life and grew up with a harsh childhood made it even more touching.
ReplyDeleteRachel Carson’s clever writing technique blended the emotion of literature with the facts of science to piece together a gripping critique of human behavior. Carson utilizes the science of time and evolution to prove that humans are accelerating technologically beyond the “deliberate pace of” time. Ironically, the saying “time is of the essence” can be understood in quite a different light. We cannot synergize our pace to the diligent timeline of adaptation. It is specifically because we cannot take our time that we subject ourselves to the worst consequences of some of our most hallowed successes. I feel that Annie Dillard shares this stress on the importance of time when she describes the gradual movement of time that buries past civilizations and fosters new ones. Silent Spring serves as a grave warning to humanity that our hubris, built upon the innovation and imagination of the scientific generation, threatens to doom us to an all to ironic end. She makes sure to point that scientific growth should not be stunted (after all it is the very scientific education that inspired Carson herself), but should be managed with responsibility. It left me unnerved when she explained that toxins are ubiquitous even with our very bodies and that there is no way to reverse the damage, and that this damage could affect generations to come due to genetic mutation. If that is how bad it was almost 50 years ago then how bad is it today? I like the way Carson provided a vivid image of the plights of communities across the nation by combining them together in a single town. I feel that this is the most effective way for her to communicate her ideas because sometimes it is hard to see the underlying effects of pollution, but putting them together provides a more palatable picture.
ReplyDeleteAlex Leeds
Chasen Bender
ReplyDeleteThe introduction and second chapter to Silent Spring sets the scene for magnitude of the impact that the text would have on the population at the time. These two readings act as a preface to what, I’m positive, the book will later reveal as the horrifying truth regarding the use of chemical insecticides, particularly DDT. It seems obvious in our day and age that the effects of pesticides would have a detrimental effect on not only the environment but also human health. At the time though, I can see where it was easy to disregard. Needless to say that hindsight is always 20/20. I am inspired by Carsons’ ability to overcome gender discrimination and lead one most revolutionary social charge that has undoubtedly saved our planet.
After reading the introduction to Silent Spring I learned that this book initiated a turning point in American environmental history. Many who had been kept in the dark about the detrimental effects of pesticide use were now introduced to the reality of these harmful products. This was a concept that was hard for me to grasp because pollution and preserving the environment is such a prominent topic in modern society. I am exposed to it all the time. So when I read the chapter of Silent Spring, I tried to imagine it from the perspective of someone who had previously known nothing about pollution and pesticide use until they read this book. I found that I would probably be infuriated and mistrusting of the government for keeping society in the dark and maintaining ignorance about the consequences of pesticide use. Carson emphasizes that “the obligation to endure gives us the right to know” which I agree with whole-heartedly (13). If people want to continue pesticide use that is their choice, but they deserve to know all the facts and consequences of it before making that decision.
ReplyDeleteI also felt like Carson felt much contempt toward the fast-pace of people and technology in the modern world. She states, “The rapidity of change and the speed with which new situations are created follow the impetuous and heedless pace of a man rather than the deliberate pace of nature” (7). She feels as if people are disrespecting and living against the flow of nature, which is causing our own self-defeat.
Rachel Carson clearly writes with an agenda to highlight the evolution of the destruction of the human population to Earth. She utilizes the three most predominantly used rhetorical techniques: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. The introduction which delineated her struggles growing up was more Ethos and Pathos. Her background established her credibility which simply adds merit to the content of her writing (Ethos). Her difficulties while growing up emotionally connects with people (Pathos). The second chapter however is all about Logos - what logically makes sense. Her statistics and all are all evident in this section.
ReplyDeleteAs for the content of the actual chapter - I agree. I think that many people have come to realize that man has altered a lot of things regarding what we consume. I believe that's why there has been such a push for organic foods with many places like Trader Joe's and such opening up all over the US. Come to think of it, many foods are genetically altered - even at Trader Joe's. A real organic banana is fairly small - which is rare to find in the US during this day in age. In conclusion, I think the world taking a step in the right direction and is reverting back to organic foods.
Similarly to Ellyse, I too really appreciated the poetic feel that was present in Carson's work, "Silent Spring". It was very interesting how in her first story, A Fable for Tomorrow, she set such a pleasant tone when describing the"town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings." Then she completely changes the tone of story, making the reader feel some sense of destruction. I really liked how she completely changed the vibe and ended the story with, "What has already silenced the voices of spring in countless towns in America? This book is an attempt to explain." This ending definitely makes me want to continue reading.
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt from "Silent Spring" was very interesting to read. I tried to imagine what it would be like to have been reading this book when it was published because it made a tremendous impact. Today we are well aware of the deteriorating effects of pesticides and other pollution and it is something that is always on the public agenda. However, as they mentioned in the afterward of the text, in the 1960's no one was really aware of the state of the environment because there was too much going on, like the space race, and the booming economy. Therefore, I can't imagine being a civilian and picking this book up at a book store and reading it. I would be in shock. It is also interesting how important this book still is today. We are still battling environmental issues and it is amazing that Carson's book can sustain through these years and still send an important message.
ReplyDeleteRachel Carson’s Silent Spring may have been the most seminal book for the environmental movement. The interesting thing about this book is that Carson argues against the use of DDT instead of choosing a greater or more visible threat. DDT had been used for some time to kill pests, and the reason why its use was so widespread at the time was because of its effectiveness. DDT kills insects and many argue that indirectly it reduces disease. Choosing to use DDT may be a choice for the lesser of two evils, and it is for this reason that some developing countries have begun to spray DDT to control their own insect populations.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would prefer a non-toxic version of DDT to be used in its place, but without that option DDT remains a valid choice. Many people in the developed world take the wisdom in Carson’s work to be beyond debate, but there are still many facets of the issue that are important to consider.
I’ve learned about the impact of Rachael Carson’s book on environmentalism and a movement towards habitat protection before, however this was the first time I had read an excerpt of the book. I can see why it created such uproar. The “Fable for Tomorrow” was a potent and descriptive narrative of what results from human ingenuity mixed with our enduring blindness to the effects of our creations. I was shocked with the statistics about the amount of new, laboratory made chemicals that have enter our ecosystems in recent years. 500 new synthetic chemicals introduced to an ecosystem balanced perfectly over millennia. It’s a frightening prospect to imagine. I was also shocked by an excerpt from the Afterword that spoke of how US engineers proposed a second canal in Panamá that would be constructed through controlled nuclear explosions. Although I believe we are more aware of the environmental impact of our creations today I think we still don’t grasp the long term ramifications of our actions that will continue to degrade the natural world.
ReplyDeleteObviously Silent Spring is hailed as one of, if not the book, that gave life to the environmental movement. More so than the descriptions of DDT and effects of the 'biocides' on communities, I think the most profound part of Carson's message is that humans cannot use the environment at their disposal. Even today, 50 years later, humans still don't care; it's not a matter of living ecocentrically but at least living biocentrically. In Michael Pollan's book The Omnivore's Dilemma, he goes into great detail discussing how U.S. companies exploit their resources and, even more disturbingly, our government subsidizes these actions. I have to disagree with Sami about people being conscious of the environment by choosing organic foods and shopping at trader joes. Although organic doesn't use the same harmful biocides as non-organic crops, it is still often grown in unnatural monocultural ways that are equally as harmful. I think that there is a common misconception in our country that organic means that is is 100% good for people and the environment. I think that if Rachel Carson looked at our organic food laws and growing practices, she would be extremely displeased.
ReplyDeleteZoya Mufti
ReplyDeleteLike many people, I thought that knowing Carson’s background was vital to understanding her impact on society. It’s bizarre to think that something we barley give a second thought too, such as pesticides, was so awful for our environment and for our health. I also found it challenging to comprehend the mentality of the people who lived in a world where something that makes so much sense now could actually be revolutionary. On another note, I also enjoyed the writing tools Carson played with, specifically the tone of her writing. As others have pointed out, Carson was able to play with the reader’s emotions by simply changing the tone of her writing. All in all I really enjoyed this reading.
It seems inevitable that every year, in at least one of my classes, Rachel Carson’s name is mentioned. I never tire of hearing about her. She is one of those rare and exceptional people that are historical time-markers. In the face of ridicule for being a biologist without a PhD—and a woman, at that!—she changed our perception of the earth.
ReplyDeleteCarson likely didn’t anticipate the effect she would have, people rarely do, but, all the same, her writing lead to a re-evaluation of the methods in which humans were attempting to reign in the earth.
The pesticide DDT first found extensive use on the Pacific stage in WWII. DDT, as a mosquito-killer, was invaluable in the sticky, tropical climates of the Pacific, and likely saved thousands of lives. Likewise, DDT, during the zenith of its commercial use, salvaged acres of crops and cured entire areas, primarily North America, of mosquito-transmitted diseases like Malaria and Yellow Fever. Carson doesn’t deny this. In fact, she never, as her critics say, specifically advocates for a complete ban on pesticides. Instead, she suggests a managed and responsible use of them. In any case, the important thing that Carson presents is that DDT is not the miracle chemical everyone thought of it as.
It had a trade-off, and that trade-off was its disastrous effects on the environment. DDT, for example, runs from human spaces into rivers, from which it enters the bodies of fish. Birds eat those fish and their eggshells are thinned, so that baby-chicks, when they are still sitting in their eggs, are crushed by the weight of their mothers simply because their eggs are not strong enough. Consequently, there are less of these birds, and their preys multiply. Soon, the prey will eat all the grass, seeds, etc. available and other species, too, will die out. From this single example we can see that the entire food chain is disrupted. I haven’t even mentioned the effects on humans.
Many today still argue that DDT is the most effective pesticide. It might very well be. For now. I find it extremely hard to believe that, will all our skill, science, and technology, we cannot invent a more effective, and safer, pesticide or pest-solution.
After I read those articles, I think about the relationship between us and the nature. At present, lots of environment issues have been brought to the public, such as Global Warming and so on. Why these horrible things happened, the ecologists said that is because of human being’s action. We want to improve our quality of life; therefore we exploit lots of natural resource. The bad thing is that we just take stuff from the nature, but we did not care the nature. But that is what we should do. The author said: “we take care of our bodies to live a longer life. We should do the same for the world. If we cherish it, make it last as long as possible, we can postpone the judgment day.” I think that the judgment day means the depopulation. The author also asked what if the world without the human? At least, if we did not exist on the earth, the earth will be better because the resource on the earth will still balance and will prolong the life of earth. People want to take over the earth, that is why managed forest occurs, however the result is not that good. We shouldn’t try to take over the nature, and we should respect for our nature, our home. From the article, our earth is our souls. Since we are damaging our souls, the quantities of other species are lower and lower. The truth is that “we cannot go it alone for every long.” We could not stay alone on the earth. We should not just take from the nature; we also need to give something back to the earth.
ReplyDelete