The Greener Reader discussion
This topic is about
Silent Spring
Silent Spring Discussion
>
How outdated in Silent Spring, really?
date
newest »
newest »
I am pretty shocked at the suggestion that Silent Spring is outdated, I feel similar to Marguerite that we can substitute in different chemical names and it is the same conversations we are having today.Marguerite, can you share some of the links to the articles?
I can't believe it has taken me this long to read this book and I'm not surprised her words sparked the environmental movement it did, but I feel people today need to hear it as desperately as ever before.
I think there is still so many people in our generation that don't comprehend how the toxification of the environment has been normalized by chemical companies, and we take as a given the narrative that humans need to dominate and destroy other life with harsh chemicals in our homes and farms.
Our past books Ishmael and Raising Elijah both come to mind as I read this book. Silent Spring has initiated regulation as Marguerite mentions, but as Raising Elijah points out, our regulatory system is flawed to almost the point of not irrelevance, but ineffectiveness. I think a new generation needs to hear, or re-hear, Carson's wisdom and the same words that sparked the "environmental age" can take the movement even farther.
Mod
I found the accusations of Silent Spring being "outdated" primarily on the Goodreads for the book, which is here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27...
Most of the reviews at that link criticize the book for being outdated.
I also just started a new discussion on some of the most common inaccuracies with Silent Spring. It seems that because the book had such an impact, it also is quite controversial too!
Realms of the Soil chapter discusses the life and health of soil, one of the most important topic for those wanting to grow food, then, now, and forever. broad-spectrum and non-specific fungicide killing beneficial fungi…p.56 ignorance and neglect of the ecology of the soil, interconnectedness and interdependence of plants and animals. It's impossiple to write this off as out dated or irrelevant! The documentary Dirt! Came out a couple years ago reiterating Carson’s words, but sadly I was hearing these ideas for the first time. The EPA, regulations, etc. came from this book and Carson but it all has been taken for granted and our environment will continuously be vulnerable to industry and capitalistic “Taker” mentality, for money and excess and the mentality of man dominating nature with new technologies.Carson's continuous discussions of scientists and regulators flirting with the unknown also needs to continue to be drilled into our consciousness… of what kind of toxic combinations are greater than the sum of each part, and what that means for human interaction, we have thrown the precautionary principle out and for what? The failed maintenance of a plant we have deemed a weed, or a bug. Her discussion of super weeds and super pests is very relevant to the GMO discussion.
Her discussion of the objective labeling of plants as “weeds”, I first heard that from a farmer who didn’t learn it because he’s read scientific journals or text books, but because farmers are the first scientists. Also the idea of planting particular crops to revitalize the soil or solve pest problems, farmers have done that with cover crops… is that the same thing? With my experience, I am learning we have a great ecological resource in are farmers, something to consider for those who found Carson too textbook and scientific (which is wrong anyways!)
p. 72 environmentalists and advocates have historically been written off as frivolous and crazy, but what about what industry goes through to eradicate one weed, or one pest? Looked at from a different lens, who is frivolous here? MAYBE BOOK CRITICS THAT HATE REALITY AND WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
Needless Havoc chapter intro could be written by Daniel Quinn in Ishmael. Man conquering/controlling nature.
p. 88 discusses the need for skepticism against industry and the State Departments and governments we want to trust. Spraying to destroy a particular beetle but lack of transparency on the necessity of such a large and dangerous projects, and against the vocal disagreement of the valid expertise. Again, this is what we are facing today with FDA versus Scientists, and being weary of the opinions of those that have something to gain from destruction or careless testing/use without testing, AND again with taxpayer dollars.
I think what's being entirely ignored here is Carson's advocacy for importing species to fight other species.Her blind advocacy for this approach is disturbing at best and downright evil at worst.
The perfect example of pest control with predators gone deeply wrong, as another reviewer brought up, is the cane toad in Australia.
Carson seems to totally ignore the issue of invasive species. No, it doesn't seem that she does, she does totally ignore the issue of invasive species unless they are pests being killed with pesticides.
I'm not for pesticide use, but Carson's advocacy for a deeply ecologically flawed and potentially disastrous approach, with no acknowledgement of how disastrous this can be, is just wrong.
Also, most earth worms aren't native in North America (and are invasive) and their introduction deeply changed the ecology of American forests, something Carson never acknowledges.
Just found a 2015 research article that quotes Rachel Carson:"Slugs are likely to consume neonicotinoids when they feed early in the growing season upon seedlings grown from coated seeds, but as molluscs they may not be sensitive to these insecticides. In Silent Spring, Carson noted ‘For some reason, snail-like mollusks seem to be almost immune to the effects of insecticides’ (1962; p. 257). This rule-of-thumb appears to hold for imidacloprid, which has low acute toxicity to Deroceras reticulatum (Simms,Ester & Wilson 2006; but see effects on freshwater snails,van Dijk, van Staalduinen & van der Sluijs 2013)."
Reference:
Margaret R. Douglas, Jason R. Rohr and John F. Tooker. Neonicotinoid insecticide travels through a soil foodchain, disrupting biological control of non-target pestsand decreasing soya bean yield. Journal of Applied Ecology 2015, 52, 250–260
Oh, and my own 2015 quote: "Carson rules!"
Wheeler wrote: "I think what's being entirely ignored here is Carson's advocacy for importing species to fight other species.Her blind advocacy for this approach is disturbing at best and downright evil at worst...."
What I wrote for the "faults" discussion in this same The Greener Reader group:
"#4 - Carson "advocates" for biological control, but also acknowledges that there are limitations to such methods. She states quite openly that "the predatory insect and its prey do not exist alone, but form part of an extensive framework of life, which should be taken into account in its entirety" (p308 in my edition, translated from Spanish). In addition, in highlighting their promise and examples of success, she also highlights the lack of thorough research into these methods that such early success would otherwise merit. In chapter 17 (p307 in my edition), Carson states that unfortunately many studies did not yet adequately measure the impact of species introductions and whether they were even effective."
It appears the book isn't merely "outdated" but that it is a fraud from the very beginning having caused the unnecessary deaths of approximately 500 million people. See about 21 minutes into this video with Stefan Molyneux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7a6u.... Comprehensive list of sources is provided in the show notes.
It's a wonderful book. Instead of posting links, give your own arguments. Read the primary material, think critically and write in your own voice. Be intellectual and do the hard work.
SO YES -- Silent Spring is outdated when you consider the specific pesticides, species of insects/ plants/ animals discussed, etc. HOWEVER, so much of the book's concepts and ideas still need to be considered today. For example, chapter three goes through at least eight different pesticides that were highly used and are now banned/ highly regulated in the U.S., and even globally through the (albeit voluntary) Stockholm Convention. However, many of the claims that Carson makes are still debated today (such as if/ how much pesticide exposure can cause cancer, how bee populations are being effected by pesticides/ industrial ag, how public health officials have inadequate safeguards for consumers.... and so on and so on!).
Also, one can easily replace the term DDT (now banned in the U.S., and only used today in highly regulated doses for malaria control) with glyphospate (the active ingredient in Round Up, which is a highly popular pesticide still largely used in ag operations today, though much less toxic than DDT) and Carson's words still ring true. Carson notes on page 32 that in 1960 over 636 million pounds of pesticides were used; the EPA reported in 2007 of over 1 billion (1,133,000,000) pounds of pesticide active ingredients were used. Thankfully the regulation of pesticides has increased since Silent Spring and there are by no doubt less toxic chemicals in use today. However, pesticides continue to accumulate in our environment and bodies in higher quantities (this was alluded to in the introduction as well: "reduction of the use of pesticides has been one of the major policy failures of the environmental era" - p. 18). And Carson's repeated explanations of how persistent pesticides are in the environment (and how little we know about how they morph and can become more toxic over time!) not only makes this book still relevant, but also FREAKS ME OUT. Try going out for sushi after reading chapter 9: NOT A GOOD CHOICE.
We can also take the applicability of Silent Spring another step -- let's replace the issue of pesticide use with mercury pollution, greenhouse gas pollution, GMO's, or another environmental debate and this book still holds up! Here are three of my favorite excerpts that are direct, unchanged quotes from Silent Spring where you can remove chemical pollution for the GMO and other debates:
(Carson) "questioned the moral right of government to leave its citizens unprotected from substances they could neither physically avoid nor publicly question. Such callous arrogance could end only in the destruction of the living world." (p. 15)
"The full scope of the dangerous interaction of chemicals is as yet little known, but disturbing findings now come regularly from scientific laboratories." (p. 44)
"Indeed one of the most alarming aspects... is the fact that here... are mingled chemicals that no responsible chemist would think of combining in his laboratory. The possible interactions between these freely mixed chemicals are deeply disturbing to officials..." (p. 53)
Beyond this applicability of the book, I am also awed when reading what was the birth of some of today's most common ecological principles. On page 56 (..."How could the chemical have built up to such prodigious levels in the grebes?...") Carson begins a 3-page definition of what today we simply call bioaccumulation -- only that word didn't exist when Carson wrote this book! (And bioaccumulation applies just as much to pesticides as it does to mercury pollution).
...If you can't tell, I'm really enjoying the book so far :) Other thoughts?! We can discuss online here and/or at the potluck discussion on July 2nd!