Thursday, April 8, 2010

Criticism on "Spring" is Far From Silent

By Jon Lindenauer

Imagine a spring when there are no songbirds singing, having all been eradicated by pesticide overuse. This is the world Rachel Carson implores readers to envision in her 1962 environmental cautionary piece, Silent Spring. Becoming wildly popular in the years following its release, Carson’s book served to highlight the dangers associated with the excessive utilization of deadly toxins and chemical agents on vegetation, animals and ourselves. Though, as demonstrated by the reactions of many following her book’s release, Carson’s message is open to misinterpretation.

Perhaps the most expounded upon idea in Carson’s Silent Spring is the hazards of DDT. The compound, a synthetic pesticide first discovered in the late 19th century, became notorious during World War II when it was used to combat typhus and malaria outbreaks. Following the war, DDT became even more in demand as a common agricultural pesticide and its use grew exponentially. However, Carson forewarns in her book about the deadly consequences of extreme use of the chemical, both on the plants receiving high amounts of the poison and on the animal populations residing in the contaminated regions.

This perceived condemnation of DDT was the subject of great ridicule by other scholars in Carson’s field and the media. In an essay entitled “The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do” Dick Taverne, a member of the British House of Commons, adamantly opposed Carson, asserting “[DDT] is the single most effective agent ever developed for saving human life.” Taverne goes on to cement his stance, adding “it can be argued that the anti-DDT campaign she inspired was responsible for almost as many deaths as some of the worst dictators of the last century.” Thus, Taverne contends that no other efforts could compare to the safety and benefits the compound provides. Consequentially, the elimination of DDT as a disease-battling agent led to an ensuing genocide that killed more people than advocacy about cutting down the usage of the chemical saved, he argues.

Additionally, Robert White-Stevens, editor of Pesticides in the Environment, mocked Carson’s damaging remarks regarding DDT, stating that if Carson’s argument were to be taken at face value “insects and disease and vermin would once again inherit the earth.” But as with Taverne’s comments, Stevens’ evaluation of Silent Spring’s claims tips favoring the hyperbolic.

Worthy of note is the fact that any claims made by an individual seemingly defacing a massive industry would be torn apart simply for tarnishing its reputation, regardless of the credibility of the individual’s claims. But taking a step back, the full scale media assault was launched by the DDT supporters on the grounds that the pesticide is a vital compound with many advantageous qualities affirming its necessity. Carson did not state that DDT does not have its merits, but rather advised moderation regarding its use. Even disregarding the type of chemical DDT is and what it is used for, there is an argument against the overuse of any synthetically produced compound – if only arguing that overuse would lead to depletion of the resource. Yet, despite its vocal detractors Silent Spring has and continues to play an important role in environmental awareness, particularly concerning the use of toxic substances and the fallout connected to their exploitation.

No comments:

Post a Comment