Given the gridlocked state of the U.S. government, I
have become curious about two occasions during the twentieth century when our
government was inspired—by books!—to step
up to the plate and take some mighty cuts against intractable public problems. I already have posted a brief review of Upton
Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, which inspired
passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in
the same year—1906—and which I am embarrassed to admit that I read for the
first time last month.
Now I have finished another famous book, Rachel
Carson’s Silent Spring, which, in
1962, argued against the indiscriminate use of insecticides and
herbicides. Carson’s book promoted an
understanding of ecology and helped create a climate sympathetic to environmentalism,
though it would take another decade for the EPA to be created and for the agricultural
use of DDT to be banned. Even this is
remarkable, considering how difficult it has been in recent years for the
United States government to do anything
constructive on any front—climate
change being perhaps the most pertinent case in point.
I found Silent
Spring challenging is a number of ways.
First, of course, there is the science.
I am not a quick study when it comes to science, and as a result I am
probably not as patient as I should be with scientific subjects. So even though Carson is a terrific writer, I
didn’t completely grasp all of Silent
Spring, such as her treatment, in chapter 3, of the creation of various
chemical compounds by manipulation of carbon and hydrogen atoms.
I thought, too, that her exposé was marred by its
many references to early-1960s concerns about the fallout of atomic radiation
in a world plagued by atmospheric nuclear testing. “We are rightly appalled by the genetic
effects of radiation,” she writes. “How,
then, can we be indifferent to the same effect in the chemicals that we
disseminate widely in our environment?”
Are we still rightly appalled by atomic radiation? It seems to me we’ve moved on to new outrages.
I thought further that some of Carson’s complaints
about the status of chemistry atop the scientific pecking order—at the expense
of biology—sounded like special pleading for her field of study. I am much more sympathetic to her argument
for interdisciplinary study of the physical and natural world than to her insistence
on the superiority of a specifically biological perspective.
I was surprised that while Carson is usually
credited with (or blamed for) the government ban on DDT, her book doesn’t exactly
advocate that. Certainly, Silent Spring is a strident argument
against the indiscriminate use of DDT, but it does not argue for a ban on its
use against malaria-carrying mosquitoes, as Carson’s critics state or imply, particularly
if they are trying to blame her for the millions of human victims of malaria.
Carson lays out her fundamental metaphor—a world
without birdsong in the spring—early in the book, a rhetorically effective overture. Chapter 2 is about the chemical war against
insects and unwanted plants, chapter 3 investigates the chemical properties of
various poisons, chapter 4 focuses on surface and ground water pollution, and chapter
5 is on soil pollution. To me this
organization of the material is probably defensible, though it seems a little random. It’s not that I find her argument
unpersuasive. It’s just that I don’t understand
the order in which she takes up subjects that inherently have a circular logic;
all of these variables strike me as being related to one another somewhat
interchangeably as either cause or effect, or both.
For me the most affecting aspect of Silent Spring—the part that will stick
with me—is its fundamental metaphor, the silence that falls over an imaginary
community of the future, a vision that could well be based on her hometown,
Springdale, Pennsylvania, in the outskirts of Pittsburgh. This community loses its song birds, bees,
and fish to mindless spraying campaigns against insects and plant life. “No witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced
the rebirth of new life in this stricken world.
The people had done it to themselves.”
We are fast approaching spring here in Lithuania, but
of course it can never come soon enough.
And reading this famous book has probably made me more aware than usual
of the status of the local bird population.
We have noticed two kinds of birds that have been prominent over the
winter: pigeons and crows. Lithuanian pigeons are distinctive only in
that they occasionally chirp; I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered chirping
pigeons before. Once in a while, we have
seen large gray birds that move a little bit like pigeons, but are a bit more
streamlined in appearance; these may represent another species of pigeon (and I
don’t believe that they go in for chirping).
And we have seen one magnificent black-and-white magpie, who likes to
hang around in a tree directly across from our flat. We have not seen any of Lithuania’s
supposedly numerous storks, though on our walk to the Hill of Crosses we encountered
an enormous nest that we assumed was home to a stork.
Lithuanian crows are big and noisy in all the
familiar ways—except for the two that adorn the balcony of a nearby flat (see
photo, above). We figure that the
purpose of these crow decoys is to keep away the pigeons, which produce
prodigious quantities of nasty poop. The
silent sentries seem to be doing their job very well, but I’ll have to say that
we’re hoping for a noisy, songbird-infested spring here in Lithuania.
No comments:
Post a Comment