The Greener Reader discussion

Silent Spring has it's critics, for sure. Perhaps anyone who writes so passionately and one-sided on an issue (while also threatening the profits of industry, let's not forget) should be thought of critically. I thought we could use this discussion space to bring up some of the inaccuracies or faults with Carson's position. Feel free to add to my list, and a quick google search will turn up plenty of other ideas! Below I've listed what I think are the top 5 arguments:

1. Silent Spring was an overly passionate diatribe, too strongly one-sided, highly anecdotal, and more of a literary piece of work (especially for a scientist). Perhaps she ought to have presented both the pros and cons of extensive pesticide use? Then again, that was just her point. Carson saw no reason to praise pesticide during her lifetime, since the pervasive and accepted argument came from plenty of literature from chemical companies and others. Additionally, Carson was not the first to find flaw in pesticide use, however her peers' research and ideas against pesticide use went unheard. It was her accessible and non-scientific writing style that allowed the book to be read by the masses rather than a small segment of scientists.

2. Minor error: The American robins never actually faced extinction from pesticide use, as she suggested. Apparently there are a few other minor errors in the book along these lines.

3. Rachel Carson has been accused of being responsible for the deaths of millions of African children from malaria because her work led to a ban on DDT (though in fact, DDT is still used in some controlled circumstances to prevent malaria in some African locations. Additionally, many mosquitos are evolving to be DDT-resistant, therefore making DDT less effective). This sentiment is nonetheless strongly expressed here: http://rachelwaswrong.org/

4. Carson advocates biological control of pests over pesticides, which often includes introducing foreign species to act as predators for the targeted pest(s). Now that we have 50 years since her writing and have implemented biological controls in many places, we know that introducing species often impacts the trophic system with unintended and negative consequences. So, while the pest may be eliminated by the introduced species, so may other species endemic and key to the ecosystem's survival.

5. Silent Spring notes an increase in cancer alongside an increase in pesticide use. Critics note that the increase in cancer was due in part to increased longevity associated with a country's improved public health, as well as smoking-related cancers that are more easily proven. Though the linkage is a presumption even today, these poisons are proven to have concinogenic impacts in lab animals, and has only become a more acceptable presumption since the writing of Silent Spring (in my opinion, especially after reading Sandra Steingraber!).

One critic here on Goodreads wrote her off as grumpy and upset and complaining, but offering no solutions. One, I hate this argument, I don’t think one has to have a solution or the expertise to be expected to come up with one, in order to point out a wrong or an injustice or disservice to communities and environment. Two, apparent on page 81, and I think throughout the book is to turn to ecological solutions, to turn to nature and those that know it best, rather than industry and devastating chemicals that they “hope” or “don’t think” will have any negative consequences. She discusses successful tactics like selective spraying, planting other plants, and introducing new species

#1 - "Overly passionate" seems to imply that her message was frenzied and spirited. The marvel of Silent Spring is that it is a meticulous, orderly, and highly rational study into the reasons why the status quo of chemical pesticide use was inordinately damaging to the environment, human health, and even the very enterprise of eliminating the target pests. Her "passionate diatribe," if any, was against disorderliness and in favor of the methodical and sober weighing of pros and cons (including what we'd call today "secondary stakeholders") and the actual measuring of consequences.

#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.

#5 - The study of cancer was still quite in its infancy when the book was written. Watson and Crick's famous article in Nature had only appeared in 1953. Theories as to the origins of cancer were still emerging (in chapter 14, Carson mentions Warburg's theory, a theory that was viable at the time). Her writing on the topic of cancer and its possible link to the plethora of synthetic chemicals at low levels was highly forward-thinking, and what we'd call today "emerging contaminants." Even today, the problem she noted 60 years ago of the lack of knowledge on what the effects of such low-level contamination are is repeatedly expressed by scientists and agencies such as the CDC. As far a leukemia, however--a cancer that develops relatively quickly compared to others by the sheer frequency of blood cell proliferation--Carson does cite examples of those who had handled chemical pesticides that, suspiciously, later suffered from the disease. Today, high rates of leukemia is in fact often a major indicator that some chemical pollutant is in the environment.

This fabricated lie, The Silent Spring, has cost 10s of millions of lives, at the least, possibly as many as 500 million lives. Watch about 21 minutes into this video with Stefan Molyneux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7a6u....

I've read Rachel Carson's book multiple times, and it's always enlightening. Posting links to videos is spam. If you don't know how to expound on your own reasoning and thoughts, then go back and read Silent Spring for yourself, and do the hard work.