Course Hero. "Silent Spring Study Guide." Course Hero. 8 Jan. 2018. Web. 18 Mar. 2018. <https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Silent-Spring/>.
Course Hero. (2018, January 8). Silent Spring Study Guide. In Course Hero. Retrieved March 18, 2018, from https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Silent-Spring/
(Course Hero, 2018)
Course Hero. "Silent Spring Study Guide." January 8, 2018. Accessed March 18, 2018. https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Silent-Spring/.
Course Hero, "Silent Spring Study Guide," January 8, 2018, accessed March 18, 2018, https://www.coursehero.com/lit/Silent-Spring/.
Rachel Carson challenges the prevailing notion humanity should control nature and use it for its own benefit. She explains humans' desire and ability to control are relatively recent. She writes, "The history of life on earth has been a history of interaction between living things and their surroundings ... Considering the whole span of earthly time, the opposite effect, in which life continually modifies its surroundings, has been relatively slight. Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species—man—acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world." Carson argues such power, when used irresponsibly, upsets the web of life—the delicate balance of all living things—and may do so irrevocably.
According to Carson, humankind's actions upon nature always have consequences, often resulting in a ripple effect much larger than it anticipated. In this work Carson focuses specifically on the use of pesticides. Attempts to control the insect population with chemicals cause unintended, often grave consequences for the entire web of life, including plants, insects, animals, and humans. Carson's ecological approach in Silent Spring—which sees life as a web where all parts connect—precipitated the environmental movement—activism focused on care for the symbiotic relationship between humans and nature.
Carson makes it clear insects and other pests may, at times, need to be controlled. She writes, "All this is not to say there is no insect problem and no need of control. I am saying, rather, that control must be geared to realities, not mythical situations, and that the methods employed must be such that they do not destroy us along with the insects." She argues actions should not be taken unless they have been carefully researched. Immediate and long-term risks, including harm to humans as well as to the balance of nature, should be understood before actions are taken. According to Carson, simple laboratory testing is insufficient, as laboratory conditions are somewhat artificial. Lab testing does not take into account the effects of multiple exposures to chemicals over time or of the interactions of various types of chemicals.
For Carson care for the environment is not merely a scientific issue but a moral one. Carson argues, given the unknown dangers to humans and the balance of nature, it is unconscionable to proceed with indiscriminate chemical use, particularly when alternatives exist. Carson closes her book with condemnation of humankind's disrespect for nature, referencing the intersection of science and ethics. She writes, "The 'control of nature' is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy, when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man." To Carson the continuation of practices so clearly inconsiderate of life indicate a greedy self-focus that is not just scientifically irresponsible, but morally reprehensible.
Carson implores her readers to become educated and not passively accept risks as inevitable. Carson argues individuals have a right to understand the immediate and long-term risks to their own well-being and to that of the larger environment. In addition, she argues individuals can sufficiently understand environmental issues. The realm of scientific knowledge is not the sacred domain of those with a formal education in the field.
Carson believes both science and business benefit from accountability. The general public plays an important role in challenging assumptions and demanding accurate information. Carson writes, "If, having endured much, we have at last asserted our 'right to know,' and if, knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look about and see what other course is open to us." The actions of individuals potentially force science and business to explore alternatives and seek sustainable solutions to environmental problems.
Carson validates the right to understand not only risks to life and health, but also risks to the aesthetics of nature. Citing the court case of a woman who opposed a pesticide-spraying program on the grounds it destroyed wildflowers, Carson quotes a jurist, "Yet, was not her right to search out a banded cup or a tiger lily as inalienable as the right of stockmen to search out grass or of a lumberman to claim a tree?" Carson argues aesthetics are inherent to our humanity; therefore, preserving the beauty of nature serves as a valid reason for speaking out against destructive practices.
Carson believes everyday people have the ability to impact the world. She urges people to speak out against the potential dangers of chemical use to the environment and the survival of the human species. Carson argues the reasonable person who has the facts will act because the alternative is impending destruction of life.