Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

The Legacy of 'Silent Spring'

By John Burnside, Resurgence. Posted November 1, 2005.


Forty-three years ago, Rachel Carson became the unlikely founder of the radical ecology movement. Her message is even more powerful today.
Advertisement

In 1962, a powerful group of chemical industry representatives, government officials and salaried "experts' on the environment set out to prevent the publication of the book of a much-loved naturalist. The naturalist in question was Rachel Carson; the book, Silent Spring. Carson placed herself -- her reputation, her failing health -- in the path of the juggernaut that, at the time, everyone still blithely referred to as "progress" -- and she slowed it a little.

The narrowest of the book's objectives -- a review of the aerial spraying of DDT over American towns, farmlands and forests -- was achieved, and government policy on pesticides was significantly altered. Its wider objective -- to radicalize our thinking about our relationship with the natural world -- was barely recognised. At the same time, the storm of controversy and argument it provoked set the tone for our environmental debates for much of the 43 years since its publication: debates that rarely address the most fundamental principles of Carson's thinking.

For Carson, what the 20th century demanded was a new way of thinking about the world. She demanded, not just an end to indiscriminate pesticide use, but a new science, a new philosophy. "The 'control of nature' is a phrase conceived in arrogance," she said at the conclusion of Silent Spring, "born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy, when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man."

This new way of thinking might now be characterized as "deep" or "radical" ecology. Since Silent Spring, a great deal of effort has gone into its suppression. As Jonathan Bate has pointed out, the two other radical movements that emerged in the 1960s, feminism and anti-racism, have been tolerated: gender and postcolonial studies are offered in most universities, for example. Radical ecology, a philosophy that challenges all the accepted social and economic models, lags far behind.

This is because it is a genuine threat, not just to vested interests within the structure, but to the structure itself, for it asks us to dismantle our most basic assumptions: about how we do business, about how we use natural "resources," about how we live. In 1962 Silent Spring made that threat real in a way that took both government and big business by surprise -- and they have been trying to avoid being caught out again ever since.

Carson did not want to write Silent Spring. True, she was painfully aware of the indiscriminate use of pesticides, and had proposed articles on the problem to the magazines that she was writing for, as far back as the late 1940s, but Silent Spring was in many ways not her kind of project. In her great sea trilogy, Under the Sea Wind, The Sea Around Us and The Edge of the Sea, a singular voice emerges, at once rigorous and lyrical, a voice she had come to know as her own. It was not, in so many ways, the right voice for a "crusading" book on DDT.

By 1957, however, the pesticide problem was totally out of hand, and as an attempt to prevent an infestation of gypsy moths in the city of New York clearly demonstrated, "The gypsy moth," Carson wrote,

"is a forest insect, certainly not an inhabitant of cities. Nor does it live in meadows, cultivated fields, gardens or marshes. Nevertheless, the planes hired by the United States Department of Agriculture and the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets showered down the prescribed DDT-in-fuel-oil with impartiality. They sprayed gardens and dairy farms, fishponds and salt marshes. They sprayed the quarter-acre lots of suburbia, drenching a housewife making a desperate effort to cover her garden before the roaring plane reached her, and showered insecticide over children at play and commuters at railway stations. At Setauket a fine quarter horse drank from a trough in a field which the planes had sprayed: ten hours later it was dead."

This was probably the single event that most influenced Carson to embark properly on Silent Spring. "There would be no peace for me," she said, "if I kept silent." Silent Spring was published in September 1962. It would be a mistake to see it simply as a book about pesticides, though that was how it was quickly characterized by its opponents, who wanted to portray Carson as anti-chemicals and hence anti-progress.

In fact, some of Carson's best writing goes into the book, as she carries her readers along with the argument. Most of all, she wanted people to see the background to the problem with DDT. Carson is a careful guide through the complex web of political and fiscal shenanigans, explaining to a public that would have known almost nothing about biological as opposed to chemical pest control, exactly how government and other bodies manipulated the figures to make the biological option always seem "too expensive."


Digg!

John Burnside teaches creative writing, literature and ecology at the University of St Andrews, Scotland.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
AlanWatts-esque
Posted by: danjkelly2 on Nov 1, 2005 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am familiar with Silent Spring, but have yet to read it (I plan on obtaining a copy immediately). It sounds as though the way she presents the facts is similar to the way in which the late Alan Watts would write and speak...both are able to present what otherwise might be boring scientific material in a manner that is both understandable and enjoyable to the layperson. We need more voices like these today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AlanWatts-esque Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: AlanWatts-esque Posted by: danjkelly2
» RE: AlanWatts-esque Posted by: Jayzer
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Nov 1, 2005 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALL new thought is at first either ignored, ridiculed or condemned before it becomes accepted as common knowledge.

Many of us have lost our connection to Mother Earth because American life is driven by consumption, we live in our cars, inside of concrete buildings, and communicate via the Internet.

The American Indian and ancient druids intuited the Mystery of God in nature; in shady places, near streams and in the silence and revered Mother Earth with awe and wonder.

In Eisenhower's farewell address he warned us not to tie our
economy to the Industrial Military Complex.
He was ignored and the American Defense budget proves we do not trust in God but in WMD.

Carson was another voice crying out in the wilderness and like other 'prophets' before her, she was ignored and ridiculed by many whose god is political power and cooporate greed.

Democracies only flourish when 'we the people' are actively involved and DOING SOMETHING: stand up-speak out- demand a change in course and reflect if our life style is a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

Loving, Respecting and spending time in Nature is not just a mystical experience or a sentimental thought.
Love and respect demands ACTION.

It is up to 'we the people' to do more than read deep words and agree; we must also do something.

To quote another 'prophet':
"It's not dark yet, but it's getting there."-Bob Dylan

www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust
Posted by: medstudgeek on Nov 1, 2005 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've only been alive 26 years, but after the past couple of years I have to say I've pretty much given up hope on us fixing the way we relate to environment. It's too late to stop global warming. Powerful forces have squashed our attempts to improve things in order to protect their own interests, just as the ancient Maya kings overtaxed their land and the Maya fell. When will we stop wrecking the earth? When our society collapses! As environmentalists point out, our society is not sustainable, and it will not sustain itself-it will collapse, in time. After a massive die-off, there will be fewer people, and we will go through a long period of a less materially complicated society. Whether industrial society could be rebuilt without fossil fuels is another question entirely. But the minor sacrifices that are politically palatable will not save things.

There is nothing to be done. Enjoy the last few decades or years of industrial civilization; if you have children, teach them to farm and hunt. The end is coming, of our civilization as of Rome before it.

After winter is summer, and after summer winter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just party 'till your dead? Posted by: logspirit
» RE: Ashes to ashes, dust to dust Posted by: underledge
Poetry of the soul versus cancer of the brain.
Posted by: Ivor on Nov 1, 2005 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rot is in. There can be hardly one who is not affected. Academia, proud science, venal politicians fueled by corrupt global corporations. All wedded and bedded with a monsterous economic juggernaut. Where self interest and the mortgage is the order of the day.

If the price is right then self interest is there scrambling for a piece, a piece of this, and a piece of that whilst reason and the poor are the first to the wall. Rachel Carson appealed to a whole generation at far deeper levels than a grey nihilistic science that marches on the road to Pharmageddon.

Modern numerology in its many manifestations seeks to control every aspect of our lives. There is no scientific evidence is the cry, and clinical trials and the statistics of science are allowed to manipulate our lives and to deny what is right before our eyes.

The poetry of the soul is love. Rachel Carsons love of Nature was perhaps the bell sound that awakened so many people and saved them from a cancer of the brain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rachel Rachel
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 1, 2005 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I actually have a recording filed away somewhere of Rachal Carson reading from Silent Spring, "We spray our elms and the following spring is silent of the Robin's song..." An almost grandmotherly tone that makes it difficult to believe that this soft-spoken lady is probably the most revolutionary environmentalist in American history. Is the book still in print? I hope so. Everyone should read it. Particularly at a time when (until recently anyway) the most powerful member of the House of Reps was a nasty little facist and former exterminator named Tom Delay who actually thinks that DDT is a good thing - I coudn't make this stuff up if I tried, folks!

In Orange County New York where I'm from we have running for County Executive a man by the name of Mike Edelstein, head of Orange Environment and a guy who knows first hand the threat we face in this country from unregulated corporate insanity.

Guess who I'm voting for?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bottom line versus Mother Earth? Insanity knows no bounds.
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 1, 2005 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish I could blame it all on corporations. But how then would I explain that although jobs are scarce in France, the government subsidizes larger families?

How then could I explain the continued use of sytrofoam cups, even while they will pollute forever and ever?

Or motorists driving SUVs? Or southern California beaches being more polluted every year?

Is it Freud's 'death wish'? Or is it that we just don't know what it means "to care"? Hurrah for secular society?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Little point re Silent Spring
Posted by: nickptar on Nov 1, 2005 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ceasing the use of DDT has greatly increased malaria incidence in some cases.

While environmental damage is bad, I don't see why a small amount of damage (much less DDT is necessary to control malaria than to apply to a field) isn't acceptable if it saves thousands of lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Rachel Carson Did Not Say
Posted by: M. Hecht on Nov 1, 2005 5:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Carson did not say in her Silent Spring is that DDT has saved more lives than any other man-made chemical. If not for DDT, millions of soldiers and refugees would have died during and after World War II from typhus; DDT was dusted onto people to protect them from the body lice that spread disease. Today in Africa, one child dies every 30 seconds from malaria, a devastating disease spread by mosquitoes. Spraying the inside house walls once a year with a minute
amount of DDT, which is now being done in some countries, cuts the malaria incidence way down.

In fact, DDT was banned in the U.S. for political reasons, not on the basis of scientific evidence. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held 7 months of hearings on DDT in 1972 , producing 9000 pages of testimony. The EPA hearing examiner, Edmund Sweeney, ruled on the basis of the scientific evidence presented that DDT should not
be banned, because it was NOT harmful to human beings or animals. The EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus then banned DDT anyway, and admitted that he did so for political reasons.

You can read the facts about DDT (and the lies of Rachel Carson) on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com . (Click on online articles, then environment.)

* The Lies of Rachel Carson," by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards,
emeritus professor of entomology at San Jose State
University. Edwards documents some of the
misstatements in Carson's Silent Spring. He started his entomology classes each semester by eating a tablespoon of DDT, to show that it wasn't harmful.

* "To Control Malaria, We Need DDT!"

A malaria-control specialist explains why
house spraying with DDT is the only effective
method for combatting malaria today.

* "Mosquitoes, DDT, and Human Health"
by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards

* The editorial from the Summer 2002 issue,
"Bring Back DDT, and Science with It!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks! Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Thanks! Posted by: crusty
» Clarification Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Clarification Posted by: crusty
BEWARE THE POSTINGS OF "M HECHT" ON THIS STRING!
Posted by: danjkelly2 on Nov 3, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"M Hecht" is Marjorie Mazel Hecht, who evidently "forgot" to disclose that she is affiliated with Dr Edwards and the website she trumpets, www.21stcenturysciencetech.com. For a balanced perspective, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021213.html. This piece, which does condone DDT use in small doses, sets the record straight on Hecht, who has no business completely disparaging and dismissing Rachel Carson's classic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some references Posted by: M. Hecht
» RE: Some references Posted by: danjkelly2