reaction to Carson’s essay

enemies of plants in the United States are accidental imports from abroad, and most of them have come as hitchhikers on plants.

In new territory, out of reach of the restraining hand of the natural enemies that kept down its numbers in its native land, an invading plant or animal is able to become enormously abundant. Thus it is no accident that our most troublesome insects are introduced species.

These invasions, both the naturally occurring and those dependent on human assistance, are likely to continue indefinitely. Quarantine and massive chemical campaigns are only extremely expensive ways of buying time. We are faced, accord- ing to Dr. Elton, “with a life-and-death need not just to find new technological means of suppressing this plant or that animal”; instead we need the basic knowl- edge of animal populations and their relations to their surroundings that will “promote an even balance and damp down the explosive power of outbreaks and new invasions.”

Much of the necessary knowledge is now available but we do not use it. We train ecologists in our universities and even employ them in our government agen- cies but we seldom take their advice. We allow the chemical death rain to fall as though there were no alternative, whereas in fact there are many, and our ingenuity could soon discover many more if given opportunity.

Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good? Such thinking, in the words of the ecologist Paul Shepard, “idealizes life with only its head out of the water, inches above the limits of toleration of the corruption of its own environment. . . . Why should we tolerate a diet of weak poisons, a home in insipid surroundings, a circle of acquaintances who are not quite our enemies, the noise of motors with just enough relief to prevent insanity? Who would want to live in a world which is just not quite fatal?”

Yet such a world is pressed upon us. The crusade to create a chemically sterile, insect-free world seems to have engendered a fanatic zeal on the part of many special- ists and most of the so-called control agencies. On every hand there is evidence that those engaged in spraying operations exercise a ruthless power. “The regulatory ento- mologist . . . function as prosecutor, judge and jury, tax assessor and collector and sheriff to enforce their own orders,” said Connecticut entomologist Neely Turner. The most flagrant abuses go unchecked in both state and federal agencies.

It is not my contention that chemical insecticides must never be used. I do contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals indiscrimi- nately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm. We have subjected enormous numbers of people to contact with these poisons, without their consent and often without their knowledge. If the Bill of Rights contains no guarantee that a citizen shall be secure against lethal poisons distributed either by private individuals or by public officials, it is surely only because our forefathers, despite their considerable wisdom and foresight, could conceive of no such problem.

The iDeal Reader Rachel Carson, ‘‘The Obligation to Endure’’

© The McGraw−Hill Companies, 2000

25

26

I contend, furthermore, that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself. Future generations are unlikely to condone our lack of prudent concern for the integrity of the natural world that supports all life.

There is still very limited awareness of the nature of the threat. This is an era of specialists, each of whom sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it fits. It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged. When the public protests, confronted with some obvious evidence of damaging results of pesticide applications, it is fed little tranquilizing pills of half truth. We urgently need an end to these false assurances, to the sugar coating of unpalatable facts. It is the public that is being asked to assume the risks that the insect controllers calculate. The public must decide whether it wishes to continue on the present road, and it can do so only when in full possession of the facts. In the words of Jean Rostand, “The obligation to endure gives us the right to know.”

Questions for Discussion 1. How did DDT come to be so depended upon in the United States and Canada?

Why were alternative pesticides not used? 2. Why is time a key factor in dealing with the effects of pesticides? 3. According to Carson, what are the central problems of our age? Why are these

problems central? Why is Carson so concerned about these problems? 4. What problems did pesticides solve? What new problems were created when

pesticides began to be used? 5. How does Carson balance alarmist phrases such as “chain of evil” (paragraph 2)

and “impetuous and heedless pace of man” (paragraph 4) with the calm language of a scientist?

6. Describe Carson’s tone: Is it calm? demanding? concerned? Point to words and phrases that exhibit this tone.

7. Is Carson an alarmist? Is this essay, first published in 1962, still relevant today?

Questions for Reflection and Writing 1. List Carson’s main and supporting points, writing an outline if you want. Study

how she puts together her argument, and consider how you might apply a similar technique to an argumentative paper.

2. What is your reaction to Carson’s essay? What pesticides should be used, if any? Should all pesticides be banned? How should farmers ensure that their crops are not destroyed by insects and disease? How should environmentalists ensure that the environment is not destroyed?

3. What countries continue to use DDT? What is being done in those countries to curb the use of this and other dangerous pesticides? Or do you think no pesticides should be banned? Research the use and subsequent banning of DDT and other pesticides in the United States. Report objectively on your findings, or take a stand and write a documented opinion essay.