Opening Remarks by Moderator Tom Dunlap

Forty years has made Silent Spring into two books—a technical discussion of an old problem and a very timely plea for a new relationship between humans and the world, one that global warning, extinctions, and other environmental problems have made more relevant as the years pass.

In reading (and commenting) keep in mind Carson’s narrative structure. The first three chapters described our situation, the next eight gave the evidence about environmental problems, three more told what the chemicals do and might do to us and our children, and a final three laid out other, better ways to control insects and a better way to think about humans’ relation to nature.

In this week’s reading Carson argued that our massive, careless use of new chemicals involved not just public health but the health of the systems that supported all life on earth. The chapters drew on a range of knowledge and ideas, from science to American values. This post can only point to some of the more important ideas and themes.

By setting the frightening tale of a “silent spring” that made up the first chapter in a small town, she appealed to American dreams of the small town as the ideal place to raise children, but the setting also allowed her to show damages to humans, plants, animal, and farms not as separate things but elements of the “web of life” and society. It also made pesticides, “men’s issues” of science and public policy, part of home and community life and so “women’s issues” as well.

In the next chapter she moved from the familiar ground of home and family to ecology, evolution, and the development of earth’s life in deep time, “intellectual” subjects she explored with poetic prose. (Even her harshest critics acknowledged her literary skill) One major accomplishment here, done very quickly, was to show how our short-term perspective created problems we did not easily see because nature’s processes worked over very long times. She put the relation between humans and the land in moral terms and made the survival of ecosystems and the processes of evolutionary change important moral values. These have become familiar, and now environmentalists plant trees to offset their use of carbon on vacation and eat locally and use public transportation to reduce their impact on the earth, but in 1962 these views were strange—even revolutionary.

In “Elixirs of Death,” she described the chemical properties of the new insecticides and herbicides, showing their immediate dangers with incidents of death and injury but also raising a deeper concern, that long-term damage might not appear until it was too late. She would return to that theme of deferred consequences often through the book.

The Age of Environmentalism that followed Silent Spring made Carson’s views seem normal, but we ought to remember just how startling they were in 1962.

Comments? Click here or go to "comments discussion thread" directly below this posting.

Comments by Moderator Linda Lear

Rachel Carson’s first twenty years of life were spent along the shores of an increasingly polluted Allegheny River. It was a river flowing from pristine fishing grounds above Springdale through railway dumps, electrical powerhouses, along slaughterhouses and chemical treatment plants for the glass, aluminum, coke and steel industries of Pittsburgh into the Ohio River at Pittsburgh’s three rivers point. Her growing up coincided with the climax of the second industrial revolution --at the very place where its awesome power to affect the future of human life and welfare was the most uncritically accepted. "We bring new things to light."

I come from the same earth, and I have always wondered what its influence was on me. As I came to write Rachel’s story I thought long and hard about what did this contamination of the environment mean to her early consciousness. Would she have been as quick to pick upon synthetic chemicals had she come from somewhere else?

Now that Witness for Nature is finished, that question in my own mind is still not definitively answered. How does one’s first consciousness of nature abide, and what difference did it make in Carson’s ability to observe and to see the "contamination of nature," and to try to "do something about it?"

To contribute to the discussion click here or go to "Comments" below. Problems? Email Anne_Roy@fws.gov or Nancy_Pollot@fws.gov

Comments by Moderator Linda Lear

Rachel Carson's last speech before the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in San Francisco, titled "The Pollution of Our Environment" (Lost Woods, pp. 227-245) summarizes much of what she wanted most to talk about in her last months, and what she thought was most important for our future.
In this speech she expanded her criticism of a society that seldom evaluated the risks of new technology before it was entrenched into social systems. Carson's understanding of social dynamics was such that she understood absolutely that once a product was put out into the social system it could not be taken back.
This Sunday, The Washington Post, had a front page article ("FDA Rules Override Warnings About Drug") that struck me as something that would not surprise Rachel Carson in the least. The culprit in this case, was not DDT, but the implementation in the food-chain of a new class of antibiotics, known commonly as cefquinome, against a bovine pneumonia-like disease, carrying with it a risk of the emergence of resistant microbes in humans who eat the meat of cattle injected with the antibiotic. In spite of protests from health groups and the AMA, it appears that the FDA will approve the use of cefquinome this spring.
The advocates of putting this "new technology" out there are not the old chemical industry or food industry as Carson knew it, but the pharmaceutical industry and the cattle/beef lobby. These are more or less the same old personnae, with slightly different nuances, but the same agenda of profit now and "we'll worry about the result to humans and nature tomorrow, or sometime later... much later.
Why has the political and economic, and yes, the scientific culture seemingly changed so little since 1963? And what conclusions for the future of our environment do you draw from this seemingly endless cycle of repeating the same old mistakes? As Carson put it in 1963" man does not live apart from the world; he lives in the midst of a complex, dynamic interplay of physical, chemical, and biological forces, and between himself and this environment there are continuing, never-ending interactions."

Reading:
Introduction by Linda Lear in Silent Spring. 40th Anniversary Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Reprinted by permission of the author.

Introduction by Linda Lear in Lost Woods: The Discovered Writings of Rachel Carson. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

To contribute to the discussion click here or go to "Comments" below. Problems? Email Anne_Roy@fws.gov

Comments by Moderator Linda Lear

Thank you all for wonderful comments thus far. I'll just add that although it's well known that Carson's view of the future of nature and of life was impacted dramatically by the atom bomb, she was really coming to grips with human impact during her research for The Sea Around Us (a much neglected book in my view!). Her prize winning essay, "The Birth of an Island" presages this recognition and should be contrasted with her first and in some respects finest piece of nature writing, Under the Sea- Wind (which will be re-published with its original foreword, as well as drawings by Howard Frech by Penguin US in April.). In Under the Sea-Wind there are no human beings. There is mention of a fisherman and humans do not impact the sea, its rhythms or life or the creatures she describes so lovingly.
Pollution, human destruction, and hubris are all very early themes in Carson's writing, and the fact that she ends with a focus on clouds, radioactive dumping in the ocean, and climate change is really not so surprising.

Reading: Linda Lear's Introduction in Lost Woods: The Discovered Writings of Rachel Carson. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
To contribute to the discussion click here or go to "Comments" below this box.