Aparna: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is considered by many the genesis event of the modern environmental movement. Do you view it as a direct challenge to a long dominant view of science as a progressive force?
Philip: No, I see it as more of an improvement that has enhanced the world we live in today and radically shaped modern science.
Josh: Same, although many may have viewed it as a threat during the time, even today (like the pesticide companies, etc), the book has greatly brought environmental science/management on a whole new level.
Aparna: Who do you think Carson’s targeted audience is? The chemical companies, the average citizens, state agencies, government agencies?
Josh: I think she has intended to write this book mostly for the government agencies. Mostly it is an attack on their lax regulations and seemingly lackadaisical policies. They are the ones overseeing this mess and they are the ones who need to be fixing this.
Philip: Personally, I think this book is meant for the average citizen, because it is the average citizen who contributes to a concerted grassroots movement for environmental justice. It is the average citizen who must be conscious of the lucrative and deceiving policies affecting them. This book is intended to be an eye-opener for the general public.
Aparna: What did you think about the fable for tomorrow? Was it compelling, exaggerated, foreboding…?
Philip: Foreboding, definitely. It was a bit dramatic but honestly the future can and maybe already is looking like that if this is the rate at which we are moving.
Josh: Some aspects were exaggerated, but I agree it was foreboding and can very well be the future.
Aparna: What do you think based on the few pages we’ve read that the main theme of her text is?
Philip: That we are the cause and the solution of the environmental problems we’re in right now.
Josh: I agree. It has to do with the destruction of the delicate balance of nature and pesticide/pollutant contamination.
Aparna: What kinds of obstacles do you think Carson must’ve faced in publishing this or criticisms after publication?
Josh: The chemical/pesticide industry was probably really hyped up during the time because of such a maverick publication.
Philip: Definitely, and the fact that she was a woman probably decreased her credibility. You know the typical housewife stereotype must’ve been pervasive.
Aparna: Explain what you think about how Carson’s concerns addressed in the book may be termed “feminist” by critics.
Philip: Just the fact that she was a woman writing such a provocative, unconventional piece.
Josh: Or maybe they’re referring to how the ecological connection of renewal is linked to the feminist idea of reproduction.
Aparna: What are some of the most enduring legacies of this book?
Josh: She was really the first to take such an approachable stance on the issue of pesticides, chemicals, toxins, etc.
Philip: I agree and the fact that a book on cancer, toxins, and pesticides became so popular and initiated dozens of environmental policies shows how compelling her writing and research is.
Aparna: So do you think we are better or worse off today, environmentally?
Philip: I think the US is better off, maybe the other countries not so much, because they are polluting recklessly without the regulations we have. I think as a whole we are more conscious, but we are still polluting.
Josh: I agree with that last sentence, but I question the comparison of the US to the other countries. We consume one of the highest energy levels, per capita, and have so much politics and red tape involved that it’s hard to say we’re “better.”
Aparna: The passage brought up the idea that the citizens as part of the Bill of Rights should have the right to know what is happening environmentally- wise in the governmental politics involved. How do you feel about this?
Josh: I don’t know…
Aparna: Ok, so more specifically, should the USDA mark foods that are GMO and non-GMO, like they do for organics? What is the level of information that should be provided to the average citizen?
Philip: Personally, I wouldn’t care about the GMO-nonGMO, unless it’s dangerous. I don’t think the average citizen would either.
Josh: But of course the critics might contend that nonGMO causes all sorts of defects, cancer, etc. I really don’t know because you don’t want to swamp items with so many unfamiliar labels and you don’t want to hide information.
Aparna: Are citizens more qualified than experts to judge pesticide risk?
Philip: Maybe because they don’t have as much of a bias/political affiliation.
Josh: I don’t think so.
Eric: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring has molded the way our nation sees pesticides and their impact on the environment. Is this true?
ReplyDeleteNeeki: Yes I definitely think that’s true. She has basically changed the way we view pesticides in regard to long term effects that pesticides have on us and the environment.
Leah: I believe this statement is true. Carson was aware that the issues she raised in regard to the environment would take many years to be solved.
Eric: Do you think that Carson was too dramatic in explaining the potential environmental problems pesticides induce?
Neeki: I don't think she was too dramatic at all
Leah: I think that she was dramatic because I feel like she's blaming the problems that are not even from pesticide use.
Eric: Evidently, Carson raised issues that when scientifically tested, were extremely hazardous. Do you think her dramatics was necessary?
Neeki: Yeah I definitely think it was necessary because I think in that time she needed to be dramatic about the problems so that people would listen. In that time, the government was very inflexible. Silent Spring caught the attention of President Kennedy and investigators, which led to an investigation of her claims.
Eric: And what were her claims? What were they and how did she support them?
Neeki: Her claims were that we, contrary to government reports, were vulnerable to the toxic substances that were being put into the environment. The industries claimed we had a threshold for these poisens but Carson presented evidence that some human cancers were likely due to pesticide exposure.
Leah: In regards to Eric's question before, I don't think her dramatics was necessary. For me, the stretches she took did not support concrete evidence and therefore did not persuade me.
Eric: So, in the case that her claims are valid, should individuals be aware of the products they are consuming? And how might an industry using these products differentiate between what is safe and what isn't and furthermore sell their product?
Neeki: What Carson wanted from the beginning was an end to using chemically toxic pesticides. She wanted the public to know about them and their effects. Right now, I think what she said has made a great impact and that we are more knowledgeable about the toxins being used.
Leah: I do think that consumers have a right to know what is in their products. That way the buyer has the decision to use a particular, modified product. By, perhaps, putting labels on items that use pesticides, like kosher food, people are informed as to what chemicals are used on the product.
Eric: So in a greater perspective, do you think Carson has impacted the way the farming industry markets their goods? Do you think Carson would be happy with how things have turned out?
Neeki: Yeah I think that things are definitely better now than they were when Carson wrote her book. We now have things like the ESA.
Leah: I also think it affected family’s decision. With knowledge of how pollution can harm the environment people payed more attention to the products they bought and companies they supported.